Bianca, very interest comments!!! Keep going!!!

Europe would be much more justified in pressing for the construction of Nord Stream or South Stream. The successfull Gazprom implementation of the Blue Stream that goes under the Black Sea to Turkey shows that building such pipelines is still the most cost effective way to secure the future of Europe. The discussion of NABUCCO is purely political project. NABUCCO has become the synonim for the control of Europe, and particularly its freedom to conduct commerce and trade energy with its big neighbor, Russia. NABUCCO's ambition is to force Europe to self-isolate from Russia, and to pay an enormous price tag for building the pipeline from Central Asia, accross Turkey and Balkans to Central and Western Europe. The problem with the project is that nobody really knows if the project is cost effective at any price. For Europe to start buiding a pipeline that still does not have secure source of energy is a political and economic suicide. Every time Ukraine stages a "gas crisis", the chorus of NABUCCO singers immediately raises the spectrum of European "energy security", to shove the project down their throats. The problem is not so much that NABUCCO really up until now has not secured the source of energy. Should Western energy majors decide to play fair, and stop using US State Department as their spokespeople, and US Department of Defense as their personal army --- the deals could be found. But it is not in the cards. The energy majors in US and UK prefer the full court press on Iran. The objective still remains to coerce Iran to turn over their energy riches for pennies on the dollar to these companies. It worked in Iraq, so they hope for the repeat success in Iran. Once Iran capitulates, the thinking goes, it would be easy for the other "stans" to fold. And then the riches of Turkmenistan and others would just be served on a silver plate. Unfortunatelly, or fortunately, the world is the same as it was in 2001-2002. The future of NABUCCO supplies are more elusive then ever. For Europe, prescious time is being wasted. Russia is not only energy supplier; it is Europe's gateway to the vast Asian continent. Through Russia, land routes open all the way to China and Korea, with a short sea trip to Japan. The countries of Central Asia are now more integrated in the Eurasian political and military structures, such as SCO and CSTO, which will provides them with the mechanism for resolving issues from transportation, energy, and customs, anti-terrorism and defence. Europe is economically a good fit for Russia, China and the countries of Central Asia. With its technology and knowhow it can meet the burgeoning needs of the continent. Russia is a major transit country, with still dominant energy and resource construction industries, but is trying to diversify by plunging its earnings into development. China is not only the manufacturing giant, it is also becoming a large market. Iran's ambitions is to fit into this Asian future, but it is potentially also a large supplier of energy. The notion that Iran somehow represents a threat to Russia's energy trade is borne out of ignorance. The needs for energy in the East (China, Korea, Japan, India) are growing, so together with the European market, future is bright for all energy suppliers. In the face of slowing economies in the West, Asian countries represent the only realistic economic goal for Europe. US policy is unwise. By trying to isolate Europe from Russia, US is only damaging Europe. It is not advancing its interests. US cannot geographically play the role that Europe and Russia can play in integration accross Asia. US economic interest would be much better served by being the enabler of this integration. US economy needs to find its relevance in this potential for prosperity, not spend all the energy trying to slow it down or prevent it.