Gerontocrat Ghostbusters?

A spectre is haunting Eurasia - the spectre of Gerontocracy. All the Powers of new Europe are deserting a divided Union to shy away from this spectre: Bruxelles and Rome, Merkel and Blair, French anti-globalists and German Federalists.

The new Great Game over Central Asia between Russia and the West is becoming a struggle to either raise or exorcise the ghosts of gerontocratic systems. Russia's sphere of vital interests in the near abroad can only be preserved by control over infrastructure, and above all the flows of energy from the region. This is achieved by catering to the needs of a gerontocratic and corrupt system, originating from the soviet heritage, which Moscow has left the states of Central Asia with.

The West, to the contrary, has a vested interest in exploiting regional resources of oil and gas, and produce safe passages for receiving them. For long, the West was pragmatic in its approach to authoritarian regimes in the region, in order to reach the overarching goal of access to the coveted energy resources. Now, the realisation that it is impossible to work with corrupt and Machiavellian regimes is starting to dawn.

The summit between presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in May was bad news for the European Union and the United States. Presidents Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan spoke in favour of closer energy relations with Russia, and against developing the westward trans-Caspian gas project. As previously reported, the trans-Caspian gas project is the key to long-term profits for the Western alternative of transferring gas from Central Asia - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC). Among BTC-investors are British Petroleum (BP) and American Chevron. Also, Royal Dutch Shell is about to lose its controlling stake in the Russian Far East Sakhalin-2 project, and BP is in trouble with its investment in the Siberian Kovykta gas field.

Western energy companies are certainly experiencing heavy setbacks in the FSU these days. As there is little to do as concerns Russia, the importance of Central Asian resources increase. Still, there is the question of the gerontocrat ghost - the inability to deal with the corrupt regimes of Central Asia. Then, what is companies such as BP and Shell going to do? Well, as the old movie tune goes:

If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call - ghostbusters!
If it's somethin' weird an it don't look good
Who ya gonna call - ghostbusters!

So, who might be such a ghostbuster? Who are the energy moguls going to call to exorcise the spectre - get rid of the ghosts of gerontocracy? A qualified guess might be a traveller in political revolutions, with experience of dealing with the old post-communist foe. Who then would be a better candidate than former US Ambassador Richard Miles? That ambassador Miles was posted to Serbia before the overthrow of Milosevic, and to Georgia during the Rose revolution is, by many, regarded as no coincidence. Some even claim that Miles figured in the outskirts of Ukraine's Orange revolution. After retirement in 2005, ambassador Miles worked as Executive Director of the Open World Leadership Center - headed by James "Icon & the Axe" Billington. Now, it seems, Richard Miles is a man without a mission. So, why not take pity on this old man and turn to him for advice - even give him a job? Miles might just be the ghostbuster who - with a little help from his friends - could get rid of some of Central Asia's gerontocrat ghosts. Who would be more fit to bring democracy and market economy to Central Asia and, in the process, safeguard western energy interests in the region?

Russia's Nationalisation Trap

Which are the common assets of a nation and who should be allowed to utilise them? This is a question of heated debate for current Russia, as the vital energy sector is gradually being nationalised. It is privatisation in reverse - for everyone to see - no matter what the Kremlin might claim. The question is: Is it good for Russia?

In terms of economics, monopolisation - in this case nationalisation - may be motivated if the sector in question constitutes a natural monopoly. This may mean one out of two things: Either the social costs of monopoly production are lower than under competitive circumstances, or if the fixed costs of entry into a sector are so high as to be predatory, it allows but one viable and effective producer. Areas associated with natural monopolies are e.g. water services, postal services, telecommunications, and so on. However, as examples in global economy show, natural monopolies are not a sine qua non. Private companies may offer such production and services, as are associated with natural monopolies, more efficiently and at a lower price, than a state monopolist may. This is not always the case, and monopoly may in some instances be preferrable to competition. However, one should not automatically rule out competition only on the basis of existing economies of scale appearing to naturally favour a monopoly situation.

So, in view of current nationalisation of the Russian energy sector, could it be argued that it constitutes a natural monopoly? Most probably not. Instead nationalisation may threaten the industry as a whole.

What an industry such as the energy sector needs is long-term engagement and development. It needs large-scale investments over a long period of time in construction and maintenance. It also needs technical skills and know-how along the entire scale from prospecting to sales. Finally, it needs means of development - the capacity to expand and extract new resources and deliver them to costumers under efficient and competitive circumstances. These are qualities that a state actor does not necessarily posses.

So, does the Russian state have the financial resources and the commitment to maintain and develop the energy sector? For obvious reasons, it is a question still to be determined. However, judging from the current situation and the way the Russian state acts, perspectives are bleak for efficient state-owned energy production in Russia. First, Russian state-owned energy companies do not fit the profile depicted above. The situation clearly needs the dynamics only attainable under competive conditions. Secondly, Russian state interests tend to come in conflict with the rational needs of the energy sector.

The 2003 Yukos scandal and its aftermath clearly indicates a conflict of interests between the state and private enterprise in the energy sector. It is often argued that Yukos founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, had become too mighty and did not know his place, by meddling into politics. He was considered a political threat to power. However, reviewing the case from an economic perspective is even more disastrous. What really was at stake, were the large investments into energy infrastructure that Yukos planned to make - the various pipelines the company wanted to build. If these plans had been realised, they would have made Khodorkovsky more or less politically independent from Russian state leverage. Still, economically, such investments would potentially have brought profits and prosperity to Russia's economy and, indirectly, to its people. Furthermore, they were exactly the kind of investments that were economically sound and would have developed the energy sector in a positive direction. Thus, by victimising Yukos for political reasons, Russia was rendered an economic loss that the state was unable to compensate for. Consequently, as Khodorkovsky's 2005 nine-year jail sentence serves to show, the interests of the state and private business are far from always compatible.

Since then, the tendency arising from the Yukos scandal has strengthened. Private companies in the energy sector meet with state or pseudo-state opposition. Deals once made are put into question. Pressure is brought to bear on outside actors, such as when Gazprom recently seized control over the Sakhalin offshore project, ousting a foreign consortium led by Shell. Environmental motives are given for action against foreign investors, whereas Russian companies would never meet with such demands. Also, as the Yukos case shows, expropriation has become a new method for the state to forward its own and associate interests.

The perspective becomes even more horrendous when reviewing the issue from a security point of view. In Putin's opinion, it seems that not having full control over Russia's energy resources would pose a threat to the country. Accordingly, Russia cannot depend on private, and often foreign, companies for its energy production. Furthermore, the country cannot depend on transit of oil and gas by pipelines running through foreign states. Consequently, new state-controlled pipelines are built bypassing intermediate countries, such as the Nordstream pipeline projected to run through the Baltic Sea. From an economic point of view, it is highly questionable whether this and similar pipeline projects are financially viable, especially as the costs for developing and expanding already existing pipelines over foreign territory would be much lower, as would even be the case of building new ones. Therefore, it is obvious that Putin's obsession with control is detrimental to almost any economic rationale.

So, who stands to gain from nationalisation of the Russian energy sector? Who is allowed to utilise the common assets and to what end? The obvious answer would, of course, be the Russian state. However, with lacking long-term commitment to maintenance and development, the overall GDP stands to lose from state ownership. The state will be forced to either carry the burden of investments or see energy incomes dwindle due to neglect and inefficiency. Consequential interruptions of delivery to costumers would not vouch for Russia's role as a reliable producer. So, why should Russia voluntarily assume these great costs, when private companies could freely do it with greater professionalism than the state would ever be able to do?

The other obvious answer would be that the Russian people would gain from nationalisation. However, to what extent are the energy incomes redistributed to the people, and if so, would it be in the true interest of the people? First, the Russians receive little of the energy profits. It is true, there have been some attempts at state social reform and economic support lately, but it is questionable whether this is motivated out of real concern for the people. An example is Russia's population decline, where Putin seems more worried about the decrease in the future number of conscripts for the military and similar issues, than the social malaise of the people itself. Also, if too great a proportion of the incomes would actually be distributed to the people, it might cause economic crisis due to consequential hyperinflation. Finally, a state-run energy sector would probably be less efficient than a private alternative, creating comparatively lower profits. The effect would be an overall lower GDP, negatively affecting the Russian people. Thus, it seems that the Russians have little to gain from nationalisation of the energy sector.

Then, does nationalisation of the state sector strenghten Russia in its foreign relations? Initially, it might seem that control of the energy - as a strategic resource - would strengthen Russia's international power. The threat of "turning the tap" would seem to be a constant leverage for Moscow towards foreign states, mainly the EU, dependent upon Russian energy. However, this is countered by an equal risk that foreign states would turn to other producers or seek alternative energy solutions, such as e.g. nuclear power. Still, as the example of the European Union shows, Russia is more dependent on the EU than the EU is of Russia. Also, the EU is becoming increasingly weary of Russian ambitions and the country's reliability as an energy deliverer. Moscow has declined to ratify the European Energy Charter Treaty. European initiatives to develop the energy contents in a renewed Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) have met with outright opposition from Russia. Thus, Moscow is sending an increasingly clear message to Bruxelles about its intentions: Russia is not to be trusted as a reliable partner to the European Union. Regretfully, these are exactly the sentiments beginning to grow in Bruxelles and European capitals.

Today, it is obvious that Putinist ideology is the foundation of the current nationalisation of the Russian energy sector. It is the sort of étatism that belongs to the 19th century. It is a statist view that emphasizes control over rationality. It is an antiquated geopolitical outlook that puts the map before the realities of modern society. It is a perspective where the power of a state is measured by the quantity of its population, not of its output. It is a perspective that sees foreign relations as a zero-sum game. That president Putin wants the state to assume control of Russia's energy resources is but another factor in this overall scheme. For him, that the state owns a country's resources is only the natural state of things - how it should be. Reviewing this perspective, the conclusion is apparent: Putinist ideology simply is a notion that lacks understanding of the modern world.

Still, what the modern world is about is cooperation to the common good of those who participate in it. Thus, what Putinist ideology disregards is a fact so obvious that it needs neither stating nor reiterating: Modern power derives from the relative gains of cooperation - not from conflict or absolute capabilities. Making it alone is simply not an option in the modern world, and still this is the absolutist approach that Putinist Russia is opting for. That it is no viable long-term option for any state, seems of no concern to the country's leadership. Sooner or later, Putin's path will, regretfully, come back with a vengeance to Russia and its people.

In the meantime, the common assets of Russia are utilised to the detriment of the country and its people. Nationalisation is not good for Russia, and thus the Russian people may gradually come to understand that Putinism is simply not good enough for them. Until then, Russia is caught in a nationalisation trap.

Kazakh Leader's son-in-law New Oil Mogul

On Tuesday, Timur Kulibayev, Kazakh leader Nazarbayev's son-in-law, was elected chairman of the country's state oil and gas company, Kazmunaigas, Reuters reports. This strengthens the tendency towards increasing control of key positions in Kazakh society by the Nazarbayev family.

As is already the case, the Nazarbayev family exercises a disproportionate influence over Kazakhstan. Only last week, news came that Kulibayev's wife and presidential daughter, Dinara, is a large indirect owner of Halyk Bank, the country's third largest bank. Another daughter, Dariga, is a party leader and an MP, whereas her husband, Rakhat Aliyev, serves as deputy foreign minister.

The 65-year-old Nazarbayev is Kazakhstan's leader since 1989. During his reign, he has often been accused of nepotism and it is quite obvious that he deliberately places family members on central posts in government and business to gradually exert greater control over Kazakhstan.

Ukraine: What Pascual Doesn't Tell

Chernobyl's lesson is that a state's lies threaten its people and its sovereignty. With this argument, former US ambassador to Kiev, Carlos Pascual, sets out on a frontal attack on Ukraine's leaders, in today's Washington Post. Using Chernobyl in a distasteful parallel, Pascual criticises Kiev for corrupting the security of Ukraine. However, what is not said is often more interesting than what is actually said. Thus, implicitly accusing Ukrainian leaders for lying, Pascual himself conceals crucial facts.

The immediate background to Pascual's vociferous accusations is the New Year's gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Kiev was put to the test, when Russian gas company Gazprom turned off gas supplies to Ukraine in mid winter. Racing against time and "popular" hypothermia, the Ukrainian government struck the deal they could get given the circumstances. With a 47 million hostage, there was little choice but to give way to Moscow's blackmail, using the brokers and dealers at hand. The result was a construct typical to the situation - with the much criticised RosUkrEnergo. It was a slave contract on unequal terms with murky Russian-Ukrainian business interests. So, where was Washington when Moscow chose to turn the tap? The truth is that Ukraine was left to the wolves, with support more in words than in deeds.

It is true, as Pascual argues, that Ukraine has enormous problems with corruption, especially within the energy sector, but he fails to see that steps are taken to combat this evil. Getting at grips with this is a condition for reform. Thus, Ukraine is intent on fighting corruption, because there is simply no other way to develop the country. The sickness is set deep in the system - from ministers to milkmen. Everyone knows this, and the Orange Revolution expressed that it was time for a change. Corruption causes lies, but what is a lie if nobody believes in it? People knew the truth, and believed they could change. However, transforming a society is like achieving transparency. It is not just getting there. It is starting somewhere. Corruption is endemic to Ukraine, and here no other sector is easier to pick on than energy. As with any monopoly, corruption will flourish as long as one supplier, namely Russia, dominates.

However, corruption and Kiev's energy problem do not justify implicit accusations that Ukrainian politics is based on lies, by equating Soviet falsehood with current democratic rule. Nor does it warrant unjust parallels between the national trauma of Chernobyl and today's complex energy policies. Pascual claims that:

Unlike in 1986 when Soviet leaders tried to cover up Chernobyl's threat, Ukraine's leaders now have the opportunity to respond to alarm bells in the gas sector and forestall an impending danger to its own sovereignty and European energy security.

What Pascual does not tell, is that Ukraine's leaders seize any opportunity they can to safeguard energy supplies - for themselves and Europe. In doing so, Kiev is walking a thin line along the domestic-foreign frontier. Relations with Russia are tense, but there is little other alternative for now, than to rely on Moscow for energy supplies. That Ukraine is dependent "on imported gas and shady contracts" is simply an effect of this.

Still, Kiev is actively trying to find alternative solutions that could also benefit other nations. Against Russia's expressive will, Ukraine is turning the flow of oil in the Odessa-Brody pipeline towards Europe. Gas supplies from Turkmenistan are sought, admittedly though in cooperation with the infamous RosUkrEnergo. Last year, plans were announced to build a pipeline from the Caspian to Poland. Another scheme is a pipeline from Iran - and then also a pipeline to the Baltic. Finally, only last week, Georgia Ukraine, Armenia and Moldova formed a regional "Organization for Democracy and Economic Development," where one of the main purposes is to: "activize efforts to ensure energy security, including by means of diversifying routes of transportation of energy resources from Central Asia and Caspian regions to the European market."

Are these actions of a country that does not try to assume its responsibility? Obviously, Kiev is trying to find alternatives to dependence on Russian energy, and by doing so attempts to rid itself of the full-fledged corruption within the Russia-Ukraine gas trade. Therefore, seeking alternatives is breaking with the past - as much in terms of dependence as corruption. This is a fact that Pascual should acknowledge, not least because Ukraine - and not the US - is running the risk of failure.

So, are the leaders of Ukraine lying, and thereby threatening their people and the sovereignty of the nation? Judging from the actions that Pascual proposes in comparison to what Kiev actually does, such a presumption is mere nonsense. There is little doubt that the government and a majority of Ukrainians would wholeheartedly subscribe to most of the measures Pascual proposes, if they only had the power to do so. Furthermore, Kiev is already working in this direction. Pascual simply cannot be ignorant of this. The question is how great a responsibility Ukraine should assume. Kiev is already out on a limb in trying to please US and EU interests in confrontation with Russia.

Bismarck said that "Politics is the art of the possible." Galbraith begged to differ by arguing that "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." It is the latter type of choices Ukraine's leaders have been facing ever since the Orange Revolution. To belittle the difficulties of these choices is outright impudent. The West rightly assumes that democracies are stable. Seldom do we realise that democratisation is volatile. In the last two years, Ukraine has made giant leaps in democratisation. Its leaders must, however, be given the benefit of the doubt that they are able to avoid the pitfalls on the road to democracy. They are little served by being stabbed in the back for not reaching perfection at once. Instead of a reward for trying, Pascual scolds them.

Furthermore, when Pascual implies that the Ukrainian leadership is lying to the people, he is in blatant disrespect of the sovereign choice of the Ukrainian people. A majority has repeatedly voted for change. On March 26, the road to reform was reconfirmed in defiance of all the hardships it involves. The people steered off from an impending backlash, not necessarily because they believed in their leaders, but because they trusted this was the right way forward.

Politics in Ukraine is a sham since the elections, and the people is witnessing the daily charade of coalition negotiations to form a new government. Still, if the politicians fail, the people will hold them accountable for erring. It is a mutual relationship with few parallels in post-soviet space. The people has, once and for all, empowered itself, and will not accept that politicians make a mockery of its sacrifices for reform and democracy. Still, few believe in miracles and the understanding is growing that progress will take time. People are no fools. Their trust will be proportionate to the achievements. The people has had its choice, and has opted for further reforms with open eyes. This is a question of political direction - not political directors. To assume that the people is not competent to judge its leaders and to see through lies, when it has done so less than three months ago is a grave misperception.

Today, what people and politicians alike realise, is the basic political and economic paradigm of diversifying risks. This is not the time for pigheadedness in going full-out either way. There is a need for moderation, even if it may involve suboptimal solutions, for the simple reason that there is no power to reach the optimal. The alternatve for the people is failure, and nobody will be there to catch them if they fall, as demonstrated by the gas crisis.

Furthermore, when Pascual calls for state intervention in the energy sector, he ignores the importance of separating state from business - the lack of which has casused many of the problems from the outset. He thus disregards the delicate balance needed for gradually introducing necessary state regulation. On a wider European scale, Kiev needs all the backing it can get for the policy it is already pursuing. Substantially greater support is needed if anything more is to be done. Such support will most likely be lacking. Pascual himself states the obvious reason for this:

The United States hardly needs another crisis in the Russia relationship as we seek Russia's help in preventing a nuclear Iran. Russia needs neither an irate European customer nor a fight with diplomatic partners seeking to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Thereby, Pascual also fails to recognise the connection between Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy. For all the domestic measures that he proposes are in direct contradiction with Russia's core interests in using energy to exert influence over its "near abroad." A situation where Moscow directly or indirectly controls Ukraine's energy sector is decidedly in the best interest of the Kremlin. The greater extent of corruption, the less degree of cohesion will Ukraine's energy policy have. As long as such a situation is maintained, Russia gets both the power and the profits from Ukraine's gas dependence. Therefore, Moscow will most likely oppose any reforms or clensing of this sector. Taking heed to Russia's interests is simply incompatible with ensuring Ukraine's and Europe's gas supplies by supporting Ukraine. This should not conceal the fact that "the EU and the US should engage Ukraine and Russia before the crisis erupts and offer to facilitate negotitation of normal commercial arrangements." Here, Pascual is completely right.

All the same, it appears that the US cannot have it both ways: Urging Ukraine forward and at the same time serving Russian interests. If the Bush administration would seriously consider Pascuals proposals, Washington may have to "walk the walk and talk the talk," and that means directly confronting Russian interests. The other way around would, to the contrary, satisfy Moscow in the short run, but also potentially paralyze progress in safeguarding Ukraine's and Europe's gas supplies in the long run. There is, however, a middle way: Trusting the sound judgement of Ukraine's leaders, that they are competent to handle the issue themselves on a regional level, and with due support from the West. This would mean the continued long-term diversification of energy supplies that Ukraine and neighbouring countries have initiated, in combination with short-term EU and US arbitration between Kiev and Moscow. By lengthy engagement, US and EU companies may also get a stake in the profits by construction of pipelines and energy production. However, trusting Ukraine's leaders is obviously the last thing Pascual would do. What he does is to urge them to pull forward in response to the dangers to their own "sovereignty and European energy security." At the same time, he apparently refers to Ukraine when stating that "Russia needs neither an irate customer nor a fight with diplomatic partners seeking to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb." By urging Kiev forward, Pascual however creates the latter - an irate customer in the guise of Ukraine.

One cannot but agree that most of Pascual's proposals would be desirable both for Ukraine and Europe at large - including Russia. The contradiction they carry in incompatible positions for, on the one hand Russia, and on the other hand Ukraine, Europe and the US, makes them an impossible road to tread. After three years in Kiev, one would expect Pascual to understand these basic complexities when Ukrainian domestic and foreign policies converge. This is though the most important factor that Pascual doesn't tell. By concealing complex but crucial factors, he would appear to badly serve the interests of both Ukraine and US foreign policy.

To be quite blunt, Pascual needs to cut the crap. He does not tell a lie, but he is surely twisting the facts, although he should know better. What is the real political motive for this? Does he have an issue with the leaders of Ukraine, the Bush administration, or the fact that Kiev does not wholly comply with any brainchild that Bush & consortes may conjure up? Prescribing a policy in two seemingly incompatible directions is not an answer. So, what is his motive. This, only Pascual can tell.

Russian-Ukrainian Gas Crisis: Profits vs Politics

The recent gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine has raised fears - not least in the EU - that Moscow is increasingly using energy as a political weapon. Such fears may be correct from a general perspective, when reviewing the political will of the Kremlin. An opposite case must, however, also be made for economics - that the crisis was more a case of profit than of politics.

An overarching question of the Russian élite since the late 1980's has been how to maximise ones own profits. The driving-force has been the individual desire for wealth. During Yeltsin's privatisation, such desires resulted in unharnessed "bandit-capitalism." Enormous fortunes were made by more or less doubtful means. Although president Putin seems to be trying to redistribute some of this wealth to his own political and private benefit, most oligarchs have been left alone as long as they don't meddle into politics. From the perspective of the mega-rich and major enterprise, trying to leave politics aside of making money has become a goal in itself, regardless of whether you are within or outside the walls of the Kremlin. To make profit in real money and to avoid being forced into economically worthless political deals should appear the obvious choice in rational terms for enterprise. Private interest comes before state interest. This, initially, may have been the motive of Gazprom - the Russian gas monopoly - in connection to the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis. Still, many Western analysts claim that the crisis was politically motivated. Such analysis, however, leaves out the first logical step of analysis, namely that of making real money.

As the crisis arose in late December, Russian gas monopoly Gazprom demanded that Ukraine paid a price roughly equivalent to that, which Western European customers pay (some 230$ per cubic metre compared to the Ukrainian price of 50$). Raising revenues from exports to Ukraine almost fivefold, was - needless to say - tempting to Gazprom in order to boost the company's stock price. In June 2005, the Russian government became majority shareholder in Gazprom, which opened up possibilities to lift the state-imposed 20% limit of foreign investment in the company by year's end. This would also be in line with the liberalisation schemes of Gazprom and its aim to expand in the oil-market, creating - all in all - the basis for a shooting stock price and compensation for the failed merger with oil-producer Rosneft. This would indicate that the main reason for Gazprom's action against Ukraine was to attain higher profits.

In contrast to this, one may instead argue that the political side of Gazprom's action was too obvious to be ignored. Accordingly, Russia would - by means of Gazprom - want to put further pressure on Ukraine - possibly to destabilise or topple its pro-Western government - before the country's parliamentary elections in March. Furthermore, the mere fact that Gazprom's chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, is also Russia's vice Premier, would make for a strong case that Gazprom's action was politically motivated. This may well be the case, but judging from Medvedev's surprised reaction when confronted with the stern reaction of the EU, as Gazprom turned off gas supplies to Ukraine, he obviously was ignorant of the full consequences of Gazprom's action. Is it really possible that the Kremlin was ignorant of the possibility that cutting Ukraine's gas supply might also mean cutting down gas supplies to the West? Didn't Medvedev or someone in the Kremlin think of the fact that gas to Europe first goes through Ukrainian pipelines, thus making it easy for Ukraine to compensate a cut in their supplies with those that would have gone to Europe. This, evidently, was how Ukraine acted with the consequence that gas supplies to Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and other EU countries were heavily reduced, creating a crisis as much with the EU as with Ukraine. Russia was portrayed as an unreliable business-partner by international media, and European politicians called for reviewing and diversifying energy supplies. Even worse, Russia again became a source of threat to Europe. Gazprom's action thus heavily damaged confidence in Russia in political as much as economic terms. Trust between Russia and Europe was dealt a heavy blow.

So, the question arises: Are the masters of the Kremlin really so crude in their political thinking as not to foresee the consequences of their actions? Did they really not consider that the issue could develop into something more than a bilateral crisis between Russia and Ukraine. I, for one, would like to think that this is not the case if regarding Gazprom's action as a political issue. It is true that the Kremlin has made a series of serious political misjudgements and mistakes in recent years, but despite all blunders, I do hope that Putin and his entourage are not so much of political novices as to be outright stupid. Therefore, to the extent that the Kremlin was involved in Gazprom's action against Ukraine, some other factor than politics would appear to have blurred their judgement. This factor might be that profits preceded politics. The prospects of increased profit by raising the price of gas to Ukraine might explain why the Kremlin oversaw the possibility of negative side-effects for Russian credibility in relation to the EU. Thus, the economic analysis might have crowded out thinking in political terms.

The alternative - that Russian action was deliberate and informed - would truly be tantalising. This would mean that Russia has reached such a level of confidence and self-sufficiency in foreign policy terms, as to be willing to risk relations with Europe and to signal that the country has the power to put a threat to the EU by cutting energy supplies. It is true, that energy is increasingly seen as an intrument of Russian security policy, but it is as much true that this instrument so far has been used with some caution and only in relation to former soviet republics. Would it, however, be true that the Kremlin - having gained control of Gazprom - rationally foresaw the political consequences of the company's action, European calls to review Russia as energy-supplier should be taken very seriously. As long as this has not been proved, however, it might be more plausible to assume that Russian judgement was blurred for financial reasons. Thus, it appears that profit preceded politics and private interest came before state interest. Another unintended consequence is, of course, that keeping politics and economics aside failed, and that Gazprom - in contrast to its aim to liberalise - is now looking at much greater political involvement in and direction from the Kremlin. To conclude, how likely is it - all things considered - that the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis was the effect of a Russian rational political decision?