ILLUSTRATION OF CONTROVERSIES

Following the events in Turkey and Syria and against the background of large-scale flooding in Eastern and Central Europe, the Russia-EU summit held on 3-4 June in the Urals city of Yekaterinburg went unnoticed, especially since, as was expected, there was no breakthrough in bilateral relations between Moscow and Brussels.

However, the lack of results is also a result. And in this case, it will have long-term consequences. The Yekaterinburg summit is notable as an illustration of the scale of the geopolitical game that the two most powerful forces in the European and Eurasian region have been playing with alternate success for many years. In this game, they widely use different terms - from energy security to human rights, and the stakes in this game are billions of dollars and geopolitical influence. And for this reason, it is understandable that a civilized confrontation accurately performed by politicians, diplomats and experts will somehow affect every country in the abovementioned area, be it in Europe or Asia, or even at the junction of the two. The venue for the latest summit, by the way, is very symbolic in this sense - Yekaterinburg is located just on the geographical border of Europe and Asia.

Topics for disagreements between Russia and the EU have an extensive nature - energy, mutual trade claims (recycling, anti-dumping, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, etc.), the visa regime, freedom of speech, human rights, civil society, as well as a topical international problem such as the conflict in Syria.

However, the main theme was energy. It is noteworthy that shortly before the summit in Brussels, the annual conference on cooperation between the EU and Russia in the gas sector - "Energy Dialogue Russia - European Union: Gas Aspect" was held. It resulted only in promises to continue the dialogue.

Just at the end of the Yekaterinburg summit, the influential British newspaper The Financial Times published an article under the high-sounding title "A Cap on Gazprom's Ambitions". Not failing to note that the share of Gazprom in the national production of Russia is 8 per cent and in tax revenues - 20 per cent, the newspaper also recalled that the company has always behaved confidently on the international stage and is still a powerhouse of Russian ambitions in the fight for the title of an energy superpower. However, according to The Financial Times, and not only, in the near future the global gas market will face major changes that will force the Russian giant to make room and the Kremlin to correct its geopolitical ambitions.

More specifically, the summit in Yekaterinburg once again revealed differences in the approaches to the content of the so-called Third Energy Package aimed at the liberalization of the electricity and gas market. The EU believes that the time of long-term contracts, where gas prices are pegged to oil prices, is a thing of the past. Brussels is sure gas transportation networks should be independent from suppliers and that market participants should have equal access to gas pipelines and storage facilities. And the Europeans are already taking action. In particular, it is noted that a number of companies are trying to influence the pricing policy by using the spot market (supply for a short period of time) of gas sales in Europe, where a buyer of raw materials acquires the right of ownership to the commodity simultaneously with the conclusion of the deal. Russia, in turn, is demanding the creation of a special legal regime for cross-border projects, which, for example, will result in the exclusion of the same "South Stream" from the proposals of the third package. But this requirement has still not been accepted by Brussels politicians. "We will continue our dialogue," the president of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy, promised. Vladimir Putin said the same, recalling that in March this year Russia and the EU signed a "roadmap" for cooperation in the field of energy right up to 2050 and that Moscow intends to adhere to its terms.

Meanwhile, another cause of the weakening of Gazprom is believed to be the "shale revolution". Shale gas is extracted from shale coal, which is ubiquitous unlike oil and gas reserves that can be found only in certain areas of the globe. And there are especially a lot of them in the United States.

Thus, the Western press has been constantly talking about the "shale revolution". At the same time, Russian experts quite convincingly claim that they do not believe in the reality and success of this process. While Europe and the United States point to the shaky financial situation of Gazprom and the increase in the operating costs of the concern, Russia reminds them of the high costs of the extraction of shale gas.

Meanwhile, Brussels has another surprise up its sleeve for Moscow. As you know, in September 2012 the European Commission launched an antitrust investigation against Gazprom, which is accused of inappropriate use of its dominant position in Central and Eastern Europe. The issue is about possible limitations of supplies to the EU, obstacles to the process of diversification, as well as inflating the price of "blue fuel". As a result, the Russian company could face a penalty of 10 per cent of its annual turnover, which, of course, is a huge sum.

The issue is about old accusations against Moscow - the linking of gas prices to political demands. It is considered that a classic example here is years of negotiations with Ukraine. Now Yerevan has suddenly ended up in the same row as Kiev. It is reported that the new tariffs for Russian gas supplied to Armenia will come into force on 7-10 July 2013, and the Armenian side has serious grievances against the Kremlin in this regard.

Thus, the contradictions between Russia and the EU seem to be quite "within the framework" at the moment, but they cannot be called easy to solve either. Perhaps the problem is that the European Union, torn by internal divisions, finds it difficult to come to any decision or agreed position. At the same time, Russia has long been seeking to become part of Europe, but positions itself as the centre of Eurasia. Naturally, the question is who the CIS countries will be with - with the EU or around Moscow as the Eurasian centre? For example, at the summit, Vladimir Putin noted the need for a new framework agreement between Russia and the European Union, which will turn 20 in 2014. However, some points that will appear in the new agreement also fall under the jurisdiction of the Customs Union, namely the Eurasian Economic Commission ... In addition, Russia clearly does not accept many European values or sees them differently. The issue is about the policy of multiculturalism, the attitude to gay marriages, different understanding of the "ceiling" of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Therefore, the creation of a pan-European energy area against this backdrop and a clear winner in the mild confrontation between Russia and the EU can hardly be expected.