The Russian gas giant Gazprom on Tuesday issued a sharp warning  to Europe not to interfere in its efforts to expand on the continent. "Attempts to limit Gazprom's activities in the European market and to politicize questions of gas supplies, which are in fact entirely within the economic sphere, will not produce good results," Alexi Miller, the head of Gazprom, announced ominously when he met with European ambassadors. "It should not be forgotten that we are actively seeking new markets such as North America and China," he added. "It's no coincidence that competition for energy resources is growing."

Miller's comments were in response to British objections to Gazprom's possible bid for the UK largest energy supplier Centrica. Not content with being the world's biggest producer of natural gas, not to mention the supplier of a quarter of all gas to the European Union, Gazprom clearly is aiming high. As a result of the furor his comments stirred up, Miller has since tried to allay fears that the tap would be turned off on Europe, by saying that existing contracts would be honored. But for many German commentators, those assurances aren't enough to allay fears.

"The threat sounds menacing," writes the Berlin-based Der Tagesspiegel. "If you don't do what I want, then I'm going to turn off the gas." The commentator, however, doesn't believe there is reason to panic -- at least as long as there is no pipeline from Siberia towards the east, which would then circumnavigate Europe. "But in the long term Russia will acquire new markets. Then, at the latest, will the West be forced to ask itself whether Gazprom shouldn’t after all have more access to the European market." According to the paper, Russian participation in German public utilities does not necessarily have to be a bad thing -- just as long as German companies have access to Russian gas fields. This could even make energy supplies more stable. "But the way in which the Russians are acting is ruining any chance of such cooperation," concludes the daily. "No one likes to work with a partner capable of making such threats."

The Financial Times Deutschland is equally scathing of Gazprom's threats saying that the company's head, Alexi Miller, "has put the stability of Western Europe's energy provision into question." The commentator sees the Ukrainian gas crisis earlier this year as a seismic shift in international energy policy relations. "In the past Gazprom was dependent on Western Europe, as it was only in this market that the Russians were able to deliver gas at prices that made economic sense. Today Europe is dependent on Russia." Gazprom delivers a quarter of natural gas supplies to Europe, while at the same time supplies in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany will soon run out. According to the paper, Gazprom is the only supplier to have access to massive reserves, which is why the company is now flexing its muscles. While the paper expresses understanding that Gazprom should want to improve its position, the company's demands are blatantly unreasonable. "Moscow's claims would only be fair if the Russians also allowed their customers access to their energy reserves," the commentator concludes.

The leftist Die Tageszeitung also bemoans Gazprom's tactics. The Russians "have discovered that their energy reserves can also be a new weapon. Gazprom is not simply a raw materials company, but also a political actor. This became clear when the unliked Ukrainian government had its gas turned off." In view of the fact that there are plenty of other customers for Russian gas, the commentator believes that Moscow will increasingly attempt to push its political objectives by threatening an energy embargo. The paper also bemoans the fact that nuclear power is once again being discussed ("as if the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl were not due next week"), while coal is now being viewed as "charming rather than dirty; the problem of greenhouse gases will somehow supposedly be solved using advanced technology." The commentator concludes by writing that if coal and atomic energy were really viable alternatives, Gazprom would not be able to make such brazen threats. "This leaves the Europeans with the uncomfortable realization that most profitable way of finding energy sources is to save energy."

-- Damien McGuinness, 12:30 p.m. CET

____________________________________________________

Condi's Coalition

A speech dealing with US policy in Iran, given by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Chicago on Wednesday, was still reverberating in the international press by the end of the week. Interpreted by some as American bellicose warmongering, and others as a push for a peaceful diplomatic solution, the headlines range from "Military Option Against Iran Open" to "Rice Optimistic About Diplomatic Solution to Iran."

After warning that peace will come only gradually to Iraq, Rice went on to discuss Iran and its nuclear program. "We can make the diplomacy work," she said, adding however more ominously that the military options remain on the table and that Washington will not necessarily wait for an international consensus. In particular her mention of "a coalition of the willing" has raised hackles, reminding many commentators of Bush's "with us, or against us" comments in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

According to the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung the phrase Coalition of the Willing, which was used originally by American President Bush to differentiate those supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and those against, has come to represent "a false war, the consequences of which Iraq, the Middle East region and the entire world are now reeling from. It also represents a temporary end of multilateralism." As such, the paper sees Rice's use of the same phrase when talking about dealing with Iran, as evidence of a distinct lack of style. "Since it can ruled out that Rice (unlike her boss) suffered from a slip of the tongue, her words can only be interpreted as an attempt to use strong words to ostracize Iran politically and economically through sanctions." However the commentator believes that because the Iran talks with China and Russia still have a chance of succeeding, America's strong words are a step in the wrong direction. "In Berlin at least," the paper concludes, "this is not the way to win over allies."

For the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung Rice's words are a clear warning that America is preparing to attack Iran. The US administration's main objective is not the Iranian atomic program, it writes, but rather to overthrow the Islamic regime. "In Washington consensus on this matter stretches from the Bush administration to parts of the opposition Democratic party. European politicians have only owned up to this fact behind closed doors. So does this policy mean a strike, even possibly with nuclear weapons, against Iran?" According to the commentator US leaders have given the distinct impression that an invasion of Iran is simply a matter of time, although certainly the possibility of increased political, diplomatic and economic sanctions is being taken more seriously in Washington. "The main hurdles to an attack are the operative difficulties of invading Iran and even more importantly the potentially disastrous political consequences. These worries are being expressed in Washington, even in the Republican Party, as well as in the upper echelons of the US administration, particularly in the military. But then that was also the case before the invasion of Iraq," concludes the commentator dryly.