It is interesting to see the mouthpieces of various special interests always getting media access. Why? The "analyst" who boldly claims that there is no need for South Stream, is clearly a paid spokesperson for different energy interests. What he fails to "analyze" is the reason behing France getting involved. It became clear to France that with Turkmenistan's departure from the Nabucco scene, it may end up depending on Germany for its supplies of gas. EU may be a community, but when it comes to energy security, it is each contry for itself. Nord Stream will supply Germany, but Denmark has already joined in. As Norway's supplies go down in a few years, the market will expand. This is why France jumped into South Stream. And what has been conveniently ommitted is the fact that the "south" fork of South Stream came as a shock and a surprise to Nabucco backers. They all put pressure on Bulgaria to delay, and dutifuly Bulgaria obeyed. But suddenly, with the move od Black Sea route along the Blue Stream bed, and through Turkish terrritorial waters, the link can just bypass Bulgaria, and accross Greece to to Italy, as initially planned. This is why Turkey is taking the heat now, as it was part of the deception. Of course, as the "analyst" says, there is always some gas from Azerbaijan (very little), and the huge amount of gas from Iran. If Europe really wants it --- I guess it would just have to behave nicely towards Iran. That would be hard thing to swallow. Next time, RT, when giving media space to paid special interests, at least have some of your experts shed some light on what they are really selling. Do not give them free propaganda time.