posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by MrSpad
I'd beg to differ pretty strongly there. There is an enormous strategic interest at stake here and in terms of Russia's ability to project influence
and economic power it can't be underestimated.
At present, there isn't a pipeline that runs from the Caspian Sea to the Med as a straight shot. Never has been one. It's a run across a couple
nations to get to the Black Sea with Turkey taking it's cut or Iran carries what others may need out to the Persian Gulf for tankers there. Russia
draws it's sources from the same puddle of course, but the point is...access to get energy resources OUT of the Caspian region have been long
established, rigid and limited.
Iran, Iraq and Syria...just this year...inked the final deal on a 10 Billion dollar natural gas pipeline from the Iranian Caspian energy fields on out
to a final terminal in Lebanon by way of Syria. The initial project is national consumption levels to the 3 nations involved plus just a bit for
profit out to international shipping in the Med...for now anyway.
How this matters is that Russia has a great deal of it's influence over Europe and it's former possessions tied up in the flow of Natural Gas, of
which it's a pretty serious exporter and known reserve location in it's own right. There are a number of media stories anyone can google over the
last 10-15 years of Russian flexing it's muscles by playing with the natural gas flow across the Ukraine and/or on into Europe.
Now if one or both of Syria and Iran remain dependent client states of the Russian Federation, then nothing changes and there won't be some big
expansion on this first time ever pipeline between the inland Sea and the Med. All remains static. If, however, the West controls BOTH Damascus and
Tehran with existing influence in the Iraqi system....well, Putin is looking at a considerably different world in strategic terms ....in about the
time it takes to lay the pipe the existing regimes surveyed out and finalized.