Energy Wire

« Previous Post | Next Post »

Plenty of Pipeline Options. All Bad

Commentators have been quick to point out that Russia's defeat of Georgia has pretty much killed the chances that new oil and gas pipelines will be built to increase the security of supplies to Europe. It's clear that there is little to stop Russia from rolling its forces up to the existing pipeline or knocking it out of commission if it wanted to. The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein even suggested that demonstrating the pipeline's vulnerability may have been one of the underlying motives for the Russian incursion.

The United States has been promoting the idea of pipeline routes skirting Russia as a way to promote European energy security, but the chances of making that work have always been slim. The reason: The United States has been simultaneously trying to keep Iran, the world's other major holder of natural gas reserves, out of world markets and out of alternate pipeline networks. Without the Iran card, it's very difficult to win a pipeline game against Russia.

The U.S. has long been pushing for oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Basin that would bypass Russia, especially via Georgia. The current Georgia pipeline began in the late 1990s as a project to carry the estimated 35 billion barrels of oil, and natural gas, from the Caspian Sea area to European markets. One current line, the Baku-Tblisis-Cyhan line, runs through Georgia and then on to Turkey's Mediterranean coast for shipment. Another oil line ends up at the Georgian port of Supsa, which the Russian navy blockaded. A proposed natural gas line, called Nabucco, would go through Georgia to Austria, reducing Europe's heavy dependence on Russian natural gas pipelines.

Was it ever possible for a non-Russian natural gas pipeline route from the Caspian basin to supply enough gas to free Europe from Russia's grip? Not likely given Europe's large needs. Moreover, Iran has perhaps the biggest natural gas reserves outside Russia, and the United States has been simultaneously trying to block any expansion of Iranian natural gas exports. It's hard to think realistically about supplying enough natural gas to the world without either of the countries with the biggest reserves.

One European oil company executive told me today that the Nabucco line, named after a Verdi opera, was simply "not a doable project because there is not enough gas to justify the investment" -- at least without Iranian gas coming into it. "The only thing that can make it viable is by using Iranian gas," he continued. Otherwise, he said, it is "pie in the sky." American policy makers, he said, "want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep Europe from using Russian gas and they want to keep Iran in a corner too."

Finally, if the United States is trying to marginalize Russia and Iran, that means a big role not only for the Caspian line but also for the capital-intensive liquefied natural gas projects in Qatar. Will Europe feel more secure by building a new natural gas dependency on the Persian Gulf?

Suddenly the pipelines that run through Georgia seem like just another facet of global energy insecurity rather than enhanced security. Oil and gas experts are fond of saying that energy security lies in diversity.
But especially when it comes to natural gas, achieving enough diversity of supply to feel secure may be impossible.

Email the Author | Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Comments (23)

with friends like that who needs an enemy?:

The Sheraton Metechi Palace Hotel in the Georgian capital Tbilisi has a sand-colored façade, dozens of floors and a bright atrium-style lobby. It is an ideal base for guests working abroad who are eager not to attract attention.

A small group of American soldiers along with US advisors in civilian clothes stand huddled around laptop computers, whispering with officers and looking at images on the screen. As soon as a visitor walks over to see what they're up to, they snap the computers shut. A man in his mid-30s, wearing a blue polo shirt, explains: "We're the worst-informed people in Tbilisi. I can't even tell you what we're doing here."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,574812,00.html

just to remind a real facts for our stupid americn friends.:

Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia?

A Turkish refusal would seriously impair American efforts to support the beleaguered Caucasus republic. Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the North. Yet that is precisely the decision before Ankara. If Turkey does not allow the ships through, it will essentially be taking Russia's side.

Whether in government or in the military, Turkish officials have for several years been expressing concern about U.S. intentions to "enter" the Black Sea. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Black Sea remained peaceful due to the fact that Turkey and Russia had clearly defined spheres of influence. But littoral countries Romania and Bulgaria have since joined NATO, and Ukraine and Georgia have drawn closer to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Ankara has expressed nervousness about a potential Russian reaction.

The Turkish mantra goes something like this: "the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Black Sea -- and as in Iraq, this will create a mess in our neighborhood, leaving us to deal with the consequences once America eventually pulls out. After all, if Russia is agitated, it won't be the Americans that will have to deal with them."

Nonetheless, Ankara sided with fellow NATO members in telling Georgia and Ukraine that they would be invited to join the alliance -- albeit without any time frame. But now that Russia has waged war in part over this decision, the Turks will have to pick sides. Deputy chief of the Russian general staff Anatoly Nogoivtsyn already warned Turkey that Russia will hold Turkey responsible if the U.S. ships do not leave the Black Sea. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will travel to Ankara on Monday to make clear that Russia means it.

Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner, mostly because of Turkey's dependence on Russian gas. More important, the two countries share what some call the post-imperial stress syndrome: that is, an inability to see former provinces as fellow independent states, and ultimately a wish to recreate old agreements on spheres of influence. When Mr. Putin gave a speech in Munich last year challenging the U.S.-led world order, Turks cheered. The Turkish military even posted it on its Web site. President Abdullah Gül recently suggested that "a new world order should emerge."

Turkey joined Russia at the height of its war on Georgia in suggesting a five-party "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform." In other words, they want to keep the U.S. and the EU at arm's length. Both Russia and Turkey consider Georgia's American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to be crazy enough to unleash the next world war. In that view Turkey is not so far from the positions of France or Germany -- but even these two countries did not suggest that the Georgians sign up to a new regional arrangement co-chaired by Russia while the Kremlin's air force was bombing Georgian cities.

Two other neighbors -- Azerbaijan and Armenia -- are watching the Turkish-Russian partnership with concern. Azeris remember how the Turks -- their ethnic and religious brethren -- left them to be annexed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Armenians already fear their giant neighbor, who they consider to have committed genocide against them. Neither wants to have to rely on Iran (once again) as a counterbalance to Russia. Oh, and of course, Iran had its own sphere-of-influence arrangements with the Soviets as well.

Though Turkey and Iran are historic competitors, Turkey has broken with NATO countries recently by hosting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on a working visit. As the rest of NATO was preoccupied with the Russian aggression in Georgia, Turkey legitimized the Iranian leader amidst chants in Istanbul of "death to Israel, death to America."

A few days later, Turkey played host to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide by the rest of NATO -- but not by Russia or Iran, or by the Muslim-majority countries who usually claim to care so much about Muslim lives.

Where is Turkey headed? Turkish officials say they are using their trust-based relations with various sides to act as a mediator between various parties in the region: the U.S. and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. It may be so. But as more American ships steam toward the Black Sea, a time for choosing has arrived.

Jeff Weintraub:

Steve Mufson has written a thoughtful, well-informed piece analyzing the link between Russia's recent actions in Georgia and the geopolitics of energy security in that region. While there are some equally thoughtful comments here, somehow many of the responses turned into a litany of nasty and beside-the-point attacks of Israel and its Jewish supporters in the U.S. This is truly sickening and not worthy of the serious discussion Mufson began and the Washington Post blogs deserve. I guess to some people, all the world's problems are the fault of the Jews.

tarquinis:

The only sensible route for Caspian region oil and gas is through the IRI to the north shore of the Persian Gulf. This would make eminent sense to the whole world, except of course the young dogs of Zion.

To Oy veh, having had two extended trips to Iran in the past few years, I respond that I trust the Iranians far more than Israel, which has for over half a century amply demonstrated total savagery and disregard for any and all principles of international law and elemental justice. Copies of Mein Kampf and The Protocols have nothing to do with the simple principle that action speaks louder than words, and it would sadly appear that they learned well from their nazi masters.

Iran has not invaded or made aggressive actions against its neighbors since around 1504, and that is in some dispute. Iran and the US in fact have deep and common interests in the region, including the stability of the Iraqi state, passage of oil and gas freely through the Straights of Hormuz, and the supression of Sunni fanatics in al-Qaeda. They have on several occasions demonstrated their desires in such regard, including when they worked with the US in Afghanistan and in calming al-Sadr militias in Basra.

It is a sorry situation to observe that the Zionist lobbies with their fangs buried deeply in the windpipe of US politics, maintain their nearly unrestricted power to dominate the fate of America. But if and when we collapse in debt of unending wars against Islam, their fate is sealed.


Mordant Cowman:

First and foremost all discussions are incomplete without recognizing Russia's aggression as real, without acknowledging Russia's true intentions.

How much of the violence we see worldwide is in someway connected to Russian money?

And how long has this been going on?

Perhaps the answers to those questions should be addressed before we start placing blame.

Just looking on:

I agree with Alan McDermot. The unusual alliance with Israel is puzzling to the ordinary American. We have seen the Jews fall victim to the worst crimes in history. At the same time, we have also seen their aggression to their neighbors, especially the Palestinians. They seem to be always involved in some war or other. And yet, they seem able to get away with anything. Perhaps the west needs to re-evaluate its diplomatic stance with Israel and those it calls 'rouge' states. Why make enemies instead of friends of these states? Why not let the Israelis fight their own wars (they seem to be always looking for it)? The west would be better off making allies of Iran and Russia but instead it antagonizes the two. To the average onlooker, Israel just doesn't seem worth all the sacrifice we are making. Is it because the west doesn't look at Russians and Iranians as their equal? We turn our backs even if we know there is sense in what they are saying. This hunger for power and unwillingness to share influence is almost irrational to a point. Payback will be h*ll.

Gerald:

There indeed are two countries here, against which we have a, partly irrational, aversion: Russia and Iran.

Russia could be troublesome, but we do have a cause in common with them: It is China. China is right on Russia's border. It may be a good energy client to it, now, but will become a land hungry threat in the future. It is also trying to get a grip on world energy markets, on which the West depends as well. Sooner or later this will call for some containment policy. Options India or Russia.

Iran is more of a problem. You can hardly call Cuba a threat to the US, but we still do not talk to its government. Likewise, it may take decennia until we talk business with Iran, even if, in spite of its current leader's populist rhetoric, it hardly poses a threat in the region. The politically realistic option is Russia.

It will be hard for McCain to accept, that Russia may be a strategic ally. Expect the West to improvise on for another 4 for 8 years, or, worse, an invasion of Iran.

Jason:

There is now open talk in Israel about using nuclear weapons against Iran, a country of 70 million.

It's also well known that Israel has been equipping and training the Georgian army.

Finally, when Israel invaded Lebanon because 5 Israeli soldiers were captured, the US encouraged Israel to keep fighting deeper into Lebanon. When Russia enters Georgia after a massacre of South Ossetians by the Georgians, the US seems to have a different view of things.

questionist:

RUSSIA didnt invade georgia for any rational reason. not oil, not geopolitics, not some strategy to gain power, none of that. Russia ivaded georgia because they felt insulted and they wanted to show the world their anger.

In other words, russia didnt invade so they could gain power, or oil, or anything rational. they invaded georgia because they wanted to show that they were strong and to gain respect.

they used to be a world class superpower, then the soviet union fell, russia became weak, and
they were shunned by the international community. nato encroached on places where they used to be powerful, the west ignored them diplomaticly, europe left them out economicly.

and so the russians felt insulted. they felt angry. they wanted more respect. and sub-conciousely, they thought that invading georgia would gain them more respect. of course, now we do respect them, but only out of fear, and in the end, all sides lose.

look at whats hapened, the west is paying attention to them now, but the west is trying to think of ways to punish russia. they have really damaged relationships, which are important in todays world. they have not gained any power at all, nobody wants to do what russia says any more than before the invasion. in fact they have lost power, people now are more UNwilling to do what russia says. the kemlin should have predicted all this if he was thinking it through rationally, but they werent thinking rationally.

THere were no geostrategic motives in the invasion. only pychological motives. no logos, only pathos.

we are respecting them more now, but only out of fear. this could have been prevented by just fulfiling their pychological needs of being a strong country and a major player. does it take something like this to wake us up?

Peter:

If all of the suggestions are implemented, then the price of oil will be at $20 per barrel, which will defeat the purpose of all the suggestions.

The only way to pay for all the suggestions is to tax oil consumption, especially in the US.

I would suggest that Obama or McCain recommend that they will tax oil at $3 consumtion tax per gallon and then introduce a tax free bracket such as 0% tax for income up to $20,000.

This way you tax consumption and reward work.

Max Fortres:

"The 'H' bomb. Hydrogen. You get it free with water. Some disassembly required. Eminently renewable."

"No -- hydrogen is not an energy source. If you make it from water, it's just an energy storage medium. You still need to get the energy from somewhere. Wind and solar may help a little, but they're not going to be the main source of energy. Only nuclear has a shot at replacing oil and natural gas."

There are recent developments in the renewable in the renwable energy industry. Most solar companies were owned by Shell Oil, British Petroleum, General Electric and so on. They have effectually quashed all new revolutionary innovation. There are new developments that can't be stopped. Most solar panels put out around 200 watts, there is a new panel coming out on the market that creates between 3000 to 5000 watts. Combined with a hydrogen fuel cell for storage any house or business can effectively go off grid. Large businesses like supermarkets which survive on a 1% net profit, can eliminate not only energy costs but generate millions of dollars of income. That will lower the cost of food. There are super computers that can monitor an entire chain of supermarkets, watching and controlling all energy production and usage.An entire supermarket chain (1000 stores)can run this computer from its home office.


alance:

The Nazis lost WWII because their war machine ran out of gas. The Germans seem to have amnesia about oil and the enmity the Russians still feel towards them. They foolishly (fuelishly) allowed Russia to be their main oil/gas supplier and now they are letting Russia call the political and military shots in Europe.

The Eastern Europeans are under no illusions about Russia and Putin. The western Europeans became lazy while living under America's nuclear umbrella. Accommodation is what they practice and preach Now they are spineless and impotent.

Robert17:

Bert:

Let's list out some natural gas and petroleum alternatives, here, that DON'T require pipelines, or even doing business with other countries, for that matter.
Conservation. It's an intangible, can't be weighed, measured, compressed, stored, or otherwise quantified, other than in observing its' measurable effects, this 'quark'-like aspect of the current energy debacle is nonetheless a valuable componementer of the problem as a whole. To wit: A parked car consumes no fuel.

Biofuels. Compressed cowfarts, ethanol, biodiesel, biogasoline, I'll bio that for a dollar...

The 'H' bomb. Hydrogen. You get it free with water. Some disassembly required. Eminently renewable.

Solar. Let the sun shine in. Every year they have solar car races. Next year, Toyota will showcase the solar-powered air conditioner. In their hybrid car. That they build in Japan. Which isn't the United States. Note the key spelling differences, there.

Wind. The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, and has been, for several centuries. An ill wind blows, though, as a result of oil-fired poltix which have reinforced the oil dependency that has helped put us in this global tar pit of idioting. But, the dutch used em, the chinese used em, we used em, and they're building more and more of these things every year. Now all Teddy Kennedy has to do is set up his podium nearby, and voila, perpetual energy.

Nookular. Everyone seems to want this thing. I say I think it's 'not good', because when a windmill falls over, you're out a cow, or something. When a nuclear plant goes haywire, they have to abandon half the state or. Windmill gooder, nuclear, not gooder.

Oil is ONE way to get 'the job' done, but not the only one. Hooray for T. Boone Pickens for pushing for car conversions, wind, and solar/thermal.

==============

Yea, hooray for Pickens, he'll make a mint converting everyone to burn the natural gas he owns in their cars. Of course that will also increase the heating costs significantly for a huge swath of the country. Hooray!

You seem to be scared of nuclear energy. There are hundreds of nuclear plants which have provided an enormous amount of electricity for decades while loosing (yes I actually intend to use the word loose) a tiny fraction of the radiation released by coal burning plants. And all with no greenhouse gas output. Nuclear is the sane choice for large amounts of constant electricity production.

Solar and wind are fine, but they are limited to the extent that the wind does not always blow everywhere, nor the sun shine. Combined with the steady production from nuclear plants they are great.

Our research efforts should be focused on energy storage. Improved energy storage technology will make electric cars feasible (currently they have range / capacity problems). It can also increase the amount of electricity we can produce from wind and solar. If we can store the energy efficiently during peak production we won't need to generate so much by burning coal when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

Tom Tomaski:

In the end, Iranian gas will flow directly from Iran to Europe via Turkey, Greece and Austria. This will begin first with Turkey buying gas from Iran, and later (unless US hits Iran or forces Turkey into a corner) Europe seeing that this makes more sense than Georgia routes or Russian dominance of energy supplies. It might even help Iranian reformists an upper hand, and lead to a change in Iran (hopefully).

oberst:

" One European oil company executive told me today that the Nabucco line, named after a Verdi opera, was simply "not a doable project because there is not enough gas to justify the investment" -- at least without Iranian gas coming into it. "The only thing that can make it viable is by using Iranian gas," he continued. Otherwise, he said, it is "pie in the sky." American policy makers, he said, "want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep Europe from using Russian gas and they want to keep Iran in a corner too."

Simple enough, Cheney could do the " Iraq maneuver " on Iran......too bad his time is running out .

Anonymous:

It was Bush that unilaterally dropped the ABM Treaty for little apparent reason. The NeoCons have plenty of interests aside from the Georgian line to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the bear's response will serve as a deterrence.

The Bushes are the Nazis revenge on America and the world: they are still fighting WW2...The thing that baffles me is the marriage of the historically Nazi Bush family and its CIA with the Zionist Israelis and their Mossad- a marriage made in Hell for the Elites…Zionism and Nazism dont mix with the Constitution: “God’s Chosen” and the “Ubermensch” don’t mix with “All Men Are Created Equal”..The hijack of government, media, and capital seems so total, and the corruption and mafias so rampant, perhaps an apocalyptic purge would bring a sigh of relief to the long term health of Earth Mother and her children..But do all you can to oust that "Judas sellout-failure hijack of the checks and balances" Pelosi and support the Cindy Sheehan campaign!!!

The Bushes are the Nazis revenge on America and the world: they are still fighting WW2...The thing that baffles me is the marriage of the historically Nazi Bush family and its CIA with the Zionist Israelis and their Mossad- a marriage made in Hell for the Elites…Zionism and Nazism dont mix with the Constitution: “God’s Chosen” and the “Ubermensch” don’t mix with “All Men Are Created Equal”..The hijack of government, media, and capital seems so total, and the corruption and mafias so rampant, perhaps an apocalyptic purge would bring a sigh of relief to the long term health of Earth Mother and her children..But do all you can to oust that "Judas sellout-failure hijack of the checks and balances" Pelosi and support the Cindy Sheehan campaign!!!


http://www.oilempire.us/bushnazi.html
The Bushes are the Nazis revenge on America and the world: they are still fighting WW2...The thing that baffles me is the marriage of the historically Nazi Bush family and its CIA with the Zionist Israelis and their Mossad- a marriage made in Hell for the Elites…Zionism and Nazism dont mix with the Constitution: “God’s Chosen” and the “Ubermensch” don’t mix with “All Men Are Created Equal”..The hijack of government, media, and capital seems so total, and the corruption and mafias so rampant, perhaps an apocalyptic purge would bring a sigh of relief to the long term health of Earth Mother and her children..But do all you can to oust that "Judas sellout-failure hijack of the checks and balances" Pelosi and support the Cindy Sheehan campaign!!!


http://www.oilempire.us/bushnazi.html

andru:

"The 'H' bomb. Hydrogen. You get it free with water. Some disassembly required. Eminently renewable."

No -- hydrogen is not an energy source. If you make it from water, it's just an energy storage medium. You still need to get the energy from somewhere. Wind and solar may help a little, but they're not going to be the main source of energy. Only nuclear has a shot at replacing oil and natural gas.

Bert:

Let's list out some natural gas and petroleum alternatives, here, that DON'T require pipelines, or even doing business with other countries, for that matter.
Conservation. It's an intangible, can't be weighed, measured, compressed, stored, or otherwise quantified, other than in observing its' measurable effects, this 'quark'-like aspect of the current energy debacle is nonetheless a valuable componementer of the problem as a whole. To wit: A parked car consumes no fuel.

Biofuels. Compressed cowfarts, ethanol, biodiesel, biogasoline, I'll bio that for a dollar...

The 'H' bomb. Hydrogen. You get it free with water. Some disassembly required. Eminently renewable.

Solar. Let the sun shine in. Every year they have solar car races. Next year, Toyota will showcase the solar-powered air conditioner. In their hybrid car. That they build in Japan. Which isn't the United States. Note the key spelling differences, there.

Wind. The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, and has been, for several centuries. An ill wind blows, though, as a result of oil-fired poltix which have reinforced the oil dependency that has helped put us in this global tar pit of idioting. But, the dutch used em, the chinese used em, we used em, and they're building more and more of these things every year. Now all Teddy Kennedy has to do is set up his podium nearby, and voila, perpetual energy.

Nookular. Everyone seems to want this thing. I say I think it's 'not good', because when a windmill falls over, you're out a cow, or something. When a nuclear plant goes haywire, they have to abandon half the state or. Windmill gooder, nuclear, not gooder.

Oil is ONE way to get 'the job' done, but not the only one. Hooray for T. Boone Pickens for pushing for car conversions, wind, and solar/thermal.

American Appreciative of Immigrants:

"Predominately violent masses [of] Third World immigrants" are on the verge of destroying the US, while we have been lying to our natural ally Russia? What?! First of all, immigrants to the US (legal and otherwise, including the most recent) have proven most interested in earning a living, contributing to the US economy (amidst some of the lowest overall unemployment in a generation), and in fact have a significantly LOWER crime rate than overall US population.

Meanwhile, Russia has shown itself neither enemy nor ally. In either case, US policy has been far too Russia-focused (with the exception of our efforts to secure nuclear materials and technical know-how) for at least the last 20 years.

Our true "natural ally" can be found here in the Americas--how sad that after helping Europe resolve centuries of conflict in a common market and political union, that we have not moved more aggressively to create a US-Latin American market and political union based on shared democratic, capitalist principles.

Charles from Toronto:

I agree that the current standoff means that Russia, with its large land mass and growing near abroad, can control oil and gas from central Asia to Europe, including western Europe.

But there are two other sources Europe may want to consider:

Hibernia, off Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada can be a fallback. Today, it was announced that a previously shelved project by Chevron for 700-million barrels of oil has been brought forward for signing tomorrow. We Canadians know we are staid and boring, but we also have rule of law and a closer proximity to London and Paris than is the case for Kazakhstan!!

The second choice is Nigeria. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has been attacking oil facilities and disrupting production as the people of the Niger (mainly the former Biafra) are very poorly treated and their lives are regrettably wretched.

Wait to see the European Union now deciding that a civil society for the people of the Niger Delta has become important, given the increased need for a s-t-a-b-l-e source of supply of hydrocarbons for Europe.

alan mcdermot:

As usual, the elephant in the room is ignored.

Iran is a natural energy ally of the US and, from a US strategic perspective, that route made the most sense.

The weaknesses and vulerabilities of the Georgia route were always obvious and well known.

But it is the Israelis, not the "US", per se, who boycotted the Iranian route.

How long do we have to pay for this unnatural alliance?

An Honest American:

For 15 years Russia has tried in vain to be a friend to the U.S., and repeatedly the U.S. has misled or even outright lied to the Russians. What ought to have been a natural ally stands, at least under current American political thinking of both major parties, to be a worse enemy than during the Cold War. Worst of all, given the enormous abbrogation of duty on the part of American politicians and the unfortunate demographic decline in Russia, the Western World really needn't worry at all about energy sources. At least, not beyond a roughly 20 year time frame. Within two generations the sheer weight of Third World immigration to the U.S. is likely to not only destroy the economy, but also succeed in liquidating the provisional classes which finance and most benefit the incredible drag those throngs of unqualified, uneducated, and predominately violent masses represent. Secure energy? Why bother. We haven't enough time left as a coherent nation to worry over it. As for Russia, the Muslim birthrate threatens to ruin their country as well. This is one reason why their leaders are willing to risk armed conflict. It isn't about energy, pipelines, or geopolitical reputations as much as it is to regain the 20 million or so ethnic Slavonic peoples who hold the demographic survival of Russia proper in their hands.

John in California:

Europe is already dependent in gas from Qatar and other Middle Eastern sources. The Caspian can be secure and would be if we did not have a knucklehead in the White House.

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.