21st Century Privatized Warfare: Will Russia Pay the Price? Part 1

June 4, 2016 - 

Artem Dobrovolsky, PolitRussia-

Translated by J. Arnoldski 

According to the IRIN agency which deals with covering situations in problematic regions, in recent years around 40 armed conflicts have been ongoing in the world. Many have lasted for years, and some for decades. The number of victims of such conflicts exceeds tens of thousands of people. Over such long periods of time, the participants in such bloodshed begin to forget who and why they’re fighting, and the numbers of participants are supplemented by various volunteers, some of whom are real military men in disguise. Some of them are genuine idealists who believe in their rightness, but an increasing number of them are mercenaries. Sometimes they are presented as idealists, but many are acting according to contracts as hired military specialists. These people are the representatives of so-called private military companies (English abbreviation - PMSC’s - “private military and security companies”). 

A PMSC is a private, commercial structure staffed by highly-qualified technical specialists controlled by the state and acting in the interests of the state. Herein lies the notion of the fundamental difference between classic mercenary groups and terrorists. But as time passes, PMSC’s are beginning to resemble the latter. 

The main document which regulates the activities of private military companies is the so-called “Montreux Document” adopted by the UN on September 17th, 2008. According to this document, “PMSCs are private business concerns that provide military and/or security services, irrespective of how they describe themselves. Military and security services include, in particular, the provision of armed guards and the protection of persons and objects, such as convoys, buildings and other places; maintenance and operation of weapons systems; prisoner detention; and advice to, or training of, local forces and security personnel.” In this same document, it is specified that states have the right to conclude agreements with any PMSC’s. In such a case, however, they (the state-contractor) bear the responsibility of the actions of the structures hired by them, including for violations of international law.

The history of the emergence of “privateers”

One of the chronologies tracing the development of PMSC’s suggests three periods: 1940-1970’s; 1980-1990’s, and from the 1990’s to this day. The borders of such are of course highly circumstantial given that it is very difficult to define strict time frames for the transition from one state to another.

The appearance of paid mercenaries is noted after the Second World War when thousands of people internally devastated but professionally trained to kill were left discharged. A demand appeared for these professionals, and the first commercial units demonstrated themselves to be a unified and formidable force during the suppression of the wave of national liberation movements in Africa. The result was a prohibition of mercenary activities at the UN level. This ban was signed in the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention concerning the defense of war victims in 1949. However, some countries, and in particular the US, did not ratify this document.

The remaining mercenaries were transformed into security services, who worked to defend both individual companies or entire governments. Private security companies gradually became a serious force for accomplishing “dirty work”, such as carrying out the orders of special forces or terrorist organizations.

Starting with the 1990’s, the role of already fully-fledged PMSC structures in local and regional conflicts dramatically increased. This was contributed to by the mass reduction of  the number of servicemen in both Western countries in the 1980’s and in the post-soviet space after the collapse of the USSR. Since then, PMSC’s have only increased their influence and combat effectiveness and have participated in military and peacekeeping operations alongside various facets of armed forces. 

If in the early 1990’s only one “privateer” existed for every 50 military personnel, then in 2012 this ratio decreased to 1:10 and this trend has only continued. In Afghanistan and Iraq alone there are several hundred private military and security companies working which feature more than 265,000 private contract personnel.

In 2012, there were more than 450 private military companies in the world covering all areas of activities relative to the various types of private companies. States gradually began to opt for the practice of outsourcing, i.e., delegating the carrying out of military and intelligence operations to PMSC’s staff forces. Parts of the function of armies and police forces were transferred to these entities. In contemporary international peacekeeping operations, these companies are subject to the law to the same extent that armed forces are.

Three categories of private military contractors (also known as PMSC’s) exist:

1. “Suppliers”: their actions (at least according to the charter) are purely defensive as they provide training and private security services in conflict zones
2. “Consulting” firms: these represent consulting services offered by retired senior officers with administrative capabilities 
3. Material-technical support companies: these companies guarantee supplies and logistics with the aid of hired civilian builders and engineers with work experience in combat zones. In relation with the development of piracy in the Gulf of Aden, a new field of activities has been taken up by PMSC’s which includes maritime services, i..e, fighting piracy, escorting ships, and negotiating the transfer and ransom of captured ships and crews.

On this note, the Russian political analyst Veronica Krasheninnikova remarked on the pages of the magazine “Russia in Global Politics” in 2008 on the professional level of the commercial military companies and their high status:

“Military contractors bear little resemblance to the dashing mercenaries that flourished in the 1980’s-’90’s in Africa. Their companies have become objects for the investments of the richest corporations from the Fortune-500 list. They are well integrated into the establishment and their senior positions are occupied by former high-ranking civil servants.”

Back in 1992, the secretary of defense of the USA, Richard Cheney, instructed the Brown and Roots company (now named Kellogg, Brown, and Root) to study the scenario of utilizing private military contractors in conflict zones. In 1995, Cheney headed the parent company Halliburton until returning to public service in 2000.

The largest Western PMSC’s

Of the more than 400 private companies who earn money for war, only some are widely known. Let’s list a few of the most famous such PMSC’s:

Academi (USA) - this company was founded by the retired US Navy Seals officer Erik Prince. It has at its disposal a modern training arena, helicopters, boats, and patrol ships which are used by the US Coast guard. This company builds training facilities for schooling its own employees and also works on contracts with the US armed forces and intelligence agencies to train their personnel. 

Formerly called Blackwater, this company became widely known after the incident in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in April 2003 when its employees came into conflict with the local population which triggered them to open fire. As a result of clashes, 4 employees of the company were captured by extremists and brutally murdered. In response, troops of the united coalition stormed the city which led to numerous victims among the civilian population. In 2007, the company received more than one billion dollars from the American government for performing special operations on Iraqi territory. Academi has a representative office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 

Kellogg, Brown, and Root (USA) - This company is the structural division of the former vice president of the USA Dick Cheney’s Halliburton which actively participated in the Yugoslav conflict as a logistical company and as the main agency which trained local police. This agency also deals in the defense of oil fields and industrial sites in Iraq.

Groupe-EHC (France) - Established in 1999 by former officers of the French Army, this was the first French military company, and is represented in the USA. This company works in high-risk regions, particularly in former French colonies and African countries. It has work experience Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Poland.

MPRI International (Military Professional Resources) Inc. (USA) - This company provides a wide range of comprehensive services for the US armed forces and foreign governments in more than 40 countries. The company provides training and support programs for special forces, programs for stabilizing conflict situations in various regions, and services in educating and training in managing state military personnel, analytical support, special operations, etc. MPRI leads security programs in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Equatorial Guinea.

In addition to its main functions, MPRI International assists public agencies in developing strategies for the effective analysis of information, supports the conduction of research, and evaluations of public opinion. It runs a program for combatting corruption which includes the establishment and operation of a special institute of general inspectors in ministries and departments for identifying corruption in both stable and unstable conditions.

At the moment, the company’s management is headed by General Carl Vuono, the former chief of staff of the expeditionary forces of the US Armed Forces during the operations in Panama and “Desert Storm", and General E. Soyster, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency the US’s military intelligence.

Participation in conflicts

PMSC’s have participated in almost all modern global conflicts. In February 1994, the president of Bosnian Muslims, Alija Izetbegovic, and Croatia’s president Franjo Tudjman, were forced under US pressure to sign an agreement on the cessation of hostilities between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war of 1993-1994 in exchange for PMSC’s committing to guarantee military resistance against the Serbs. The realization of these provisions on behalf of the US State Department fell to MPRI International.

PMSC’s consisting of retired American officers managed to, in the shortest possible period, train the top echelons of the Croatian and Bosnian militaries. The sufficiently high military success of the offensive operations conducted by Croat and Bosnian troops in the spring-autumn of 1995 (the so-called “Balkan Blitzkrieg”) against the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina was to the credit of private military company specialists directly involved in the conflict. Another, no less famous PMSC, DYNCORP Inc., actively participated in policing operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.

During the Yugoslav conflict in 1994, MPRI International organized the training of the high command of armed formations in Croatia and Bosnia and developed and employed an effective system of rapid communication between their headquarters and NATO soldiers.

MPRI played a key role in organizing the Croatian Army’s “Storm” massacre operation in Serbian Krajina in the spring and fall of 1995. 

After the end of the active phases of the conflict, the company continued to work with the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) and then worked with Albanian armed groups in Macedonia in 2000-2001, as well as with government forces in Liberia and Colombia.

Thus, the US, without officially interfering in political process, achieved impressive results. According to their programs for training reserve officers, MPRI employees work in military educational institutions as teachers and administrators. The company’s specialists prepare manuals for the Pentagon to use in cooperation with PMSC’s in carrying out military operations. The company’s specialists have also dealt with the selection of weapons and their procurement (including preparation and implementation contracts), the reforming of the Georgian Armed Forces according to the brigade model adopted in most NATO countries, the training of soldiers and non-commissioned officers (at the Camp Yankee base in Kuwait before their deployment as coalition soldiers to Iraq), the preparation of staff officers, the development of Georgian military doctrine, educational manuals and training programs for soldiers, the holding of military exercises, and the development of military operation plans against the independent states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The real takeoff for PMSC’s was NATO’s war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The main source of income for PMSC’s was logistical support, for the guarantee of which in Iraq 138 billion dollars was spent. In 2008, the number of American troops numbered 160,000 persons, while the employees of PMSC’s numbered around 180,000.

PMSC’s have been criticized a number of times for their excessive brutality against civilian populations. One of the most infamous incidents involving mercenaries took place on September 16th, 2007 in Baghdad when employees of Blackwater formed part of the convoy of the US State Department. Shooting suddenly started (to be more precise, a single shot), after which they proceeded to kill 17 civilians.

There exist several versions as to the reasons for this situation. Of course, the employees of the company justify themselves by the fact that a number of them were threatened by an explosive device after which they opened fire in self-defense. According to the Iraqis, there was no attack on the convoy, but rather one of the escorts merely lost his mind as the passing convoy refused to stop at the request of Iraqi police.

The consequence of the massacre was the deprivation of the company’s license for a whole week. The investigation did not find confirmation of an attack on the convoy. The Iraqi government initiated the withdrawal of Blackwater from the country only then to renew the contract after some time. Subsequently, the company was disbanded and rebuilt under a different name. Now Blackwater is known as Academi and is successfully continuing its activities around the world.

The inhuman treatment of civilians is far from the only accusation which has been presented to PMSC’s. These agencies are also suspected of money laundering, arms smuggling, and not to mention performing secret, illegal assignments for special forces.

Money laundering is rather simple as the funds that come into the possession of these companies are enormous and tracking the flow of cash flow is extremely difficult. Money directly used “on the ground” can be signed off for anything from “irrevocable losses” to “broken weapons”, “medical needs,” and so on. The list can be continued indefinitely. 

One of the most prominent specialists and masters of money laundering was the former defense secretary of the US, Dick Cheney. We will mention only one accusation from the long list (none of which, of course, have been disproven): an audit of Kellogg, Brown, and Root, a subsidiary company of Dick Cheney’s oil services of Halliburton, revealed an inflation of 67 million dollars for the project of creating a network of cafeterias for the US military in Iraq. 

Continued in Part 2 

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

The US wants to turn Skopje into the Balkan Kiev

April 15, 2016 -

Andrew Korybko, Katehon -

The Republic of Macedonia fell victim to the US’ latest regime change destabilization against it, with “opposition protesters” rioting in the capitalWednesday night and even ransacking one of the President’s offices. While Hybrid War tension has been building for some time already and was described by the author in numerous publications before, the spark that pushed them into acting was President Ivanov’s surprise declaration of amnesty for all the people under investigation as part of the “wiretapping scandal”, with the Macedonian leaderremarking that this is a necessary step in order to move the country forward and out of the political quagmire. The Color Revolution elements inside of the country exploded into fury at the announcement, enraged that their attempt to use the newly created and McCarty-esque “Special Prosecutor’s Office” as an anti-government witch hunting weapon had been dramatically foiled. 

The Enemy Within

In response to the sudden spoiling of its ‘constitutional coup’ plans, the US ordered its subordinate Soros-affiliated “NGO” networks and the “opposition” to turn up the heat against the authorities and initiate the progressive rollout of their second preplanned Hybrid War putsch, setting the Color Revolution wheels into motion in advance of what is expected to be a forthcoming Unconventional Warfare complementary campaign. An unpopular spectrum of anti-government “activists” – including ‘Liberal-Democrats’, Cultural Marxists, and Europhiles (essentially one in the same) – flooded into Skopje in a frenzied effort to turn it into the Balkan Kiev, but once more, the professionalism of the security services and the patriotism of the population played a large role in mitigating the immediate escalation of the urban hostilities and in preventing them from getting totally out of control. The threat still remains and the US’ intention to overthrow the Macedonian government is now out in the open and utterly undeniable to all objective observers at this point, but the hooligans were so far unsuccessful in their plan to exploit their series of violent provocations and create an opening to embed themselves in the middle of the city. 

Having taken a day to assess the events of 13 April, they can be seen in hindsight as an unofficial declaration of the US’ second Hybrid War aggression against Macedonia, pushed forwarded a bit from its original launch date due to President Ivanov’s surprise announcement but still close enough to the 5 June early elections to be able to destabilize them. Washington summoned the country’s internal political enemies out into the street in a treasonous act of anti-government defiance in order to intimidate the rest of the country and gin up more support for the movement among society’s most radical elements. The brief period of rioting was also meant as a signal to the Wahhabi/Irredentist Albanians that are under the US and Tirana’s influence (and for some of them, their direct employ) to prepare for launching the next stage of the Hybrid War. This could likely see them staging a Kumanovo-style attack that would in turn activate the Western mainstream media-manipulated narrative that the Macedonian Crisis is a Huntingtonian ‘Clash of Civilizations’ between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Macedonians, which in any case would complicate the political turmoil by introducing strong shades of identity conflict.  

Nasty Neighbors

Despite being of critical importance to the stability of the entire Balkan region, the Republic of Macedonia cannot depend on its neighbors for help in overcoming the destabilization, and if anything, all of them besides Serbia have hostile intentions towards it. Before continuing, it’s necessary to expand a bit on Serbia’s projected reaction to all of this, since it’s the first country that would be most immediately affected if Macedonia is thrown into mayhem and at least one million immigrantsconsequently exploit this state of affairs in order to flood across its borders. At the same time, however, Serbia is in no practical position to constructively assist its southern neighbor, and even if it did, it’s all but assured that such moves would instantly and deliberately be misconstrued by the West and each of the two countries’ domestic “opposition” movements and transformed into an anti-government rallying cry . Faced with this reality and the much higher subjective priority that Serbia places on its own internal stability and that of Republika Srpska (which is being rattled by Sarajevo’s institutional attacks against it), Belgrade would probably limit any prospective support to Skopje to the diplomatic-informational realm. 

Greece:

To address the nastiness of the rest of Macedonia’s neighbors which believe they have a stake in the country’s destabilization and potentially even ultimate dissolution, it’s necessary to first and foremost speak about Greece, which has ratcheted up bilateral tension lately by allowing repeated NGO-organized immigrant invasion attempts of the Macedonian border. The lingering “name dispute” is what’s to blame for the Greek authorities’ eagerness to subvert their northern neighbors, believing that if the massive pressure incurred by this cresting human wave can succeed in toppling the authorities and installing Zoran Zaev’s pro-US puppet regime in its place, the new “government” might ‘compromise’ on the Republic of Macedonia’s constitutional name and thereby satisfy Athens’ longstanding will. In order to fulfill the mission that it’s been obsessed with for over two decades now, some Greek authorities are utilizing the tens of thousands of Mideast immigrants that are inside the country’s borders as “Weapons of Mass Migration” against Macedonia, anticipating that they can be employed (both figuratively and literally) as battering rams for pushing forward the US’ regime change agenda and tangentially achieving their own self-interests in the process. 

Bulgaria:

The other two neighbors that are interested in the Macedonian state’s downfall are Albania and Bulgaria, each of which have their own “Greater”/Irredentist aspirations to promote. Nearly a year ago during the last major Hybrid War disturbance in the country, the author wrote about how these two states were poised to exploit Macedonia’s misfortunes in seeking to tear it apart and geopolitically divide it between them, whether formally or via de-facto spheres of influence. The next day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned his Albanian and Bulgarian counterparts against pursuing this dastardly plot, and shortly thereafter the state-to-state tension lightened to a degree and Bulgaria’s “anti-terrorist/anti-refugee” border buildup was revealed to be the naked instrument of bullying pressure that the author predicted it was in the first place. Still, despite backing down from formally trying to unbalance the state and strategically distract the Macedonian authorities, nationalist elements in Bulgaria remain dedicated to turning what they view to derogatorily be an extension of their own country into an outright protectorate or re-annexed territory, and it can’t be dismissed that similar pressures such as the ones from last year will be repeated in the current scenario. Positive media coverage of the “opposition” and any forthcoming extremist Albanian elements would also function in a ‘softer’ but similar way in helping to promote Sofia’s ultimate objectives. 

Albania:

This brings the analysis around to examining Albania’s role in all of the intrigue, which is the most negative one of them all. Amidst its current immigrant outflow and dwindling domestic conditions, the Tirana elite are eager to redirect rising animosity to their rule towards the convenient distraction of promoting “Greater Albania”. Last year the Kumanovo terrorists were reported to have come from the NATO-occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo, and this time it’s believed that any extreme political-insurgent elements within the country will have the full behind-the-scenes support of the Albanian establishment. When it comes to the potential for Wahhabi terrorists and Daesh cells to rear their heads amidst any future conflict, Tirana would probably play a backseat role to all of that by allowing its Turkish ally to take the lead in handling these sorts of terrorists operations, just as it has battletested experience in doing over the past half a decade against Syria, and likely offering up its territory for this purpose. Furthermore, the US already has a brand-new terrorist organization waiting in the wings to act, the “Albanian National Army” that just sprouted up in occupied Kosovo and conveniently, in the reported words of one of its ‘commanders’, “considers NATO to be its friend”. The Albanian-American-Turkish terrorist nexus along the non-Tirana-administered areas of the envisioned “Greater Albania” (NATO-occupied Kosovo and western Macedonia) will definitely play a determining factor in any forthcoming Hybrid War scenarios and presents the utmost greatest threat to regional stability. 

Chaos At The Gates

Targeting Multipolarity:

The Republic of Macedonia is at the literal forefront of the US’ War on Europe, as the author explained in a prior piece for Katehon pertaining to the Immigrant Crisis. It’s recommended that the reader review the aforementioned citation if they’re not yet familiar with the author’s analysis on this topic, but the general idea is that the US is employing “Weapons of Mass Migration” in order to place the EU into a permanent state of Hybrid War tension and facilitate the Color Revolution removal of leaders that have pragmatic engagement with Russia and China. On a more regional level, the US is targeting the Republic of Macedonia and Serbia because they’re the key bottleneck states in actualizing China’s Balkan Silk Road project, which if completed, would complement Russia’s currently suspended Balkan Stream gas pipeline and together create the infrastructural backbone of a multlipolar future for Europe. 

Regional Tidal Wave:

Hybrid War in and of itself is destabilizing for any country and region that suffers from its most intense manifestations, but the most direct and debilitating form of chaos that it immediately leads to is an outflow of immigrants/refugees/undercover terrorists to and from the battlespace. This takes on a particular significance in the present day given the ongoing Immigrant Crisis and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s February dire warning to the world that “hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under the guise of being refugees.” The Republic of Macedonia is literally on the frontlines of this crisis and has amazingly stood strong in the face of the overwhelming odds against it, but faced with the recent commencement of Hybrid War within its borders and the possibility of the Color Revolution disturbances transforming into an all-out Unconventional War, it’s uncertain at this time how effectively it’ll be able to hold out. 

Structural Vulnerabilities: 

Greece’s repeated border subversions and the culpability that some of its government authorities and hosted NGOs have in worsening the Immigrant Crisis and funneling its most destabilizing elements northward to Macedonia can expectedly be taken to mean that the security services will have their work cut out for them in juggling the nascent Color Revolution threat, snuffing out any Unconventional Warfare ones infiltrating in from Albania and/or NATO-occupied Kosovo, and securing the border from an outright immigrant invasion. Furthermore, if Bulgaria once more decides to provocatively send troops to the Macedonian border amidst a rapidly escalating climax of the situation, then it could have the effect of stretching the Macedonian authorities’ concentration much too thin and opening up strategic vulnerabilities on one of these multiple fronts that could then be instantaneously exploited by the US and its allies in accordance to their many preplanned and forecasted scenarios. The end result of a successful regime change in Macedonia would be the barbarian-like storming of the country’s territory and an uncontrollable surge of up to one million immigrants right through the heart of the Central Balkans, precisely at the moment in time when the regional states had begun to finally breathe a collective sigh of relief that the worst point of the crisis was behind them. 

Reinforcing The Front:

In dealing with this possible eventuality, it’s necessary that the Macedonian authorities receive some sort of multilateral physical support from the same stakeholders that most immediately have something to lose if the government falls and becomes a doormat for the US’ “Weapons of Mass Migration” to invade Europe. Right now, as the author previously analyzed in an article for The Saker, the status quo equilibrium and the de-facto closure of the “Balkan Corridor” is presently maintained by joint the Austrian-Hungarian leadership that brought all of the Balkan states together and got them to overlook their bickering in favor of pursuing a collective and coordinated solution to the problem that plagues them all. The most effective way to proactively counter the chances that the incipient Hybrid War in Macedonia will demolish the border ‘floodgates’ and inundate Europe with an uncontrollable flow of “Weapons of Mass Migration” is for this temporary Central European-led security structure to take on a heightened role (by official Macedonian invitation, of course) in patrolling the Greek border and thus giving the authorities more flexibility in responding to the US’ other provocations. 

Concluding Thoughts

Macedonia convincingly appears to be on the brink of a large destabilization, a second Hybrid War that’s directly targeting its government but is also indirectly aimed at destroying the prospects that Russia and China have for progressively liberating Europe from unipolarity. Washington has thrown down the gauntlet, as expected, in using its proxies to send a strong message to Skopje that its democratic security methods in foiling the “Special Prosecutor Office’s” ‘constitutional coup’ plot and in protecting Europe from the uncontrollable ravages of the Immigrant Crisis will be met with the harshest asymmetrical response possible. 

The growing threat that a full-scale Hybrid War will break out in the Republic of Macedonia is very high, and the Moscow-based Katehon think tank wisely suggeststhat harsh anti-riot measures be immediately implemented in order to contain the Color Revolution threat. If the authorities can get a handle on dealing with this latest destabilization before it gets out of control, then they’ll be in a better position for responding to any predicted “Greater Albania” and/or Daesh terrorist attacks that might break out before the 5 June early elections. If these two pressing internal threats can be effectively neutralized, then Macedonia won’t be as vulnerable to the direct subversion that its Albanian, Bulgarian, and Greek neighbors are plotting against it with American and Turkish ‘Lead From Behind’ assistance.  

If worst comes to worst, then Macedonia could greatly benefit from multilateral assistance in reinforcing its border with Greece so that its security services could more easily react to internal provocations as they arise, which would thus enable the government to put down any destabilizing domestic disturbances while relying on its international partners and equal strategic stakeholders in protecting the southern border from a “Weapons of Mass Migration” invasion into all of them. The less than two-month period before the election will be absolutely critical for the stability of the Balkans and the rest of Europe, but if history is any indication, then just as they did last year around this time, the Macedonian people will legendarily succeed in knocking out the Hybrid War threat that the US is once more siccing on them and ultimately landing Uncle Sam another embarrassing black eye. 






     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

Energy Security of the Balkan States: Is there any alternative to Russian gas?

April 5, 2016 - 

Dušan Proroković, Katehon - 

Energy security is an expression used every day but one which we cannot precisely define. In political theory and security studies, is there no clear answer to what energy security means? In the famous classification of Barry Buzen, there are five security sectors: Societal security, Political security, Environmental security, Military security and Economic security. The question is: where does energy security belong? Or, if we want to put energy security in a separate sector, the question is whether in the same way can we also classify water security, security of arable land and so on? Security means the absence of threats, and, consequently, energy security meant the availability of energy sources. In this lecture I will speak in this context.

Because the Balkan countries have modest energy resources, the level of analysis cannot be national or only narrow regional. We must refer to the wider regional level. The problem with the wider regional level is: how widely to define the region? The Balkans is a part of Europe, part of the Mediterranean basin, part of the Greater Near East. Because of its geographic position and geopolitical factors the best framework is to look at the Balkans as a part of Western Eurasia.
 
The Balkans is located in an area important for the transport of oil and natural gas from the Middle East and Central Asia to western markets. This is the reason why since 1993 there were plans for eight energetic corridors to be built over the Balkans: "South stream" pipeline, then its successor the “Turkish stream”, “NABUCCO”, the “Trans-Adriatic pipeline”, “AGRI” and “East ring”, as well as the oil pipelines  “AMBO” and “CPOT”. None of these projects were ever realized.  The South Stream would connect Russia with Western Europe through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia.  Without any doubt, it is the most important project. It is the only sustainable project. Under the current circumstances it is difficult to expect the realization of the Turkish Stream. NABUCCO was ambitious but unrealistic, and all other gas pipelines-TAP, AGRI and East Ring had a dual function. First, they were to influence the decline of consumption of Russian gas by the EU market. And secondly, to demonstrate to the leaderships of the Balkan states that the issue of energy security could be solved by relying on other projects, in which there is no participation of Russia. Both of these tasks are debatable.
 
The biggest western energy project in the last two decades that concerned the Balkans was the Nabucco pipeline. Although the construction of this pipeline was a political priority for the United States, it turned out that it cannot be be competitive to the “South Stream” pipeline. First, the capacity of Nabucco is supposed to be between 31 billion cubic meters of gas per year, which is only half of the capacity of the “South” or the “Turkish” stream. In addition it remained unclear from where Nabucco would be withdrawing the said amount of gas, as the source from Azerbaijan's Shah Deniz can only fill the pipeline with a maximum of 16 billion cubic meters per year. Another open question is the price of the distributed gas, because of the length of the pipeline, and the associated costs of providing for the pipeline that would go through unstable areas. Therefore, even if it came to realization, it would not be possible to provide a significant alternative to Russian energy through Nabucco, nor can it reduce the energy dependence of Europe from Russia. The same goes for “Trans Adriatic”, AGRI and East Ring. The "Trans-Anatolian" pipeline as a Turkish project should be completed by 2018 and is supposed to initially bring about 16 billion cubic meters of gas per year to the "Trans Adriatic" pipeline.
 
The same question arises in the case of the “Trans Adriatic” pipeline as in the case of “Nabucco” pipeline – there is an ongoing concern if the gas from Azerbaijan can be an alternative to the basic reserves of gas from Russia. It is not certain that the reserves in Azerbaijan are large enough. First of all, the ownership of Shah Deniz, the biggest and the most important gas field in Azerbaijan is very complex. BP has 28,8 percents of shares, Turkish TPAO 19, Azerbaijan SOCAR 16,7, Malesian  Petronas 15,5, Russian Lukoil 10 and Iranian National Oil Company 10 percent. The gas field "Shah Deniz" is located in Azerbaijan, but it is not in Azerbaijan ownership. The second thing is that Uzbekistan has two times bigger and Turkmenistan has 20 times bigger proven reserves than Azerbaijan. On the list of the countries by natural proven gas reserves Azerbaijan is in the 28th position. Proven gas reserves in Azerbaijan are not enough to be any realistic alternative to Russian gas. This question is even more important when it is known that gas reserves in Azerbaijan are supposed to be used also in two new alternative routes. One of them is the “East Ring” that should connect Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary and the second one was the announced as the AGRI project – a pipeline for LPG that would connect Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania and Italy. LPG would be transported by tankers from Georgia to Romania, and from Romania to Italy; the pipeline would stretch through Serbian and Croatian territories. Both of these projects, however, have only been announced so it is still not known who would finance the entire job, how profitable it would be, and what selling price would be at the end destination. One thing about prices: today, natural gas price is around 230, and LPG  is at 470 USD, and if we compare prices in 2014 natural gas was around 350 and LPG 1000 USD. So, LPG is two to three times more expensive than natural gas.
 
It is appropriate that the EU wants to reduce its energy dependence on Russia and other producers. Therefore, the EU initiated a number of programs with an aim to increase the share of energy from renewable sources. However, this process is slow and at least in the first half of the 21st century, fossil fuels will remain a key energy source. More than 70 percent of energy in Europe comes from fossil fuels.
 
When it comes to fossil fuels, it is necessary to underline that coal reserves are being exhausted rapidly, and there are numerous ecological problems with excessive use of oil. This is why gas is becoming the more popular and more acceptable energy source. As in the case of the EU, the Balkan countries are basing their energy strategy on the availability of energy sources.  It is appropriate that in the countries of South East Europe, except Albania and Moldova, energy security is currently based on coal. However, coal reserves are quickly exhausting, and it is necessary to look for a sustainable alternative. According to the latest research of "Elektroprivreda Srbije", lignite in the Kolubara basin can be exploited until 2060. Excluding hydro potential, other renewable resources are used in a negligible percentage. In 2015, the South East European countries signed an agreement with the EU on the so-called Third Energy Package, which defines the rights and obligations of countries on the common energy market. However, as in the case of thet Migrant crisis, when it turned out that the Schengen and Dublin agreements are not a sufficient legal framework for problem solving, the same has happened with the common energy market in 2016, when  the European Commission recently informed Serbia that they are thrown out from the plan for emergency gas supply for that year. Of course, without any acceptable explanation. The question of energy supplies largely remains a part of the national question.
 
According to numerous analyses that were done, the simplest, most cost-effective and environmentally the most acceptable way is connecting with big sources of natural gas in the wider region. The nearest big natural gas sources are in Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan. When it comes to natural gas and Turkmenistan, this country is in a strategic partnership with China. We're too late. When it comes to natural gas and Iran, a large investment and a lot of knowledge is necessary for exploitation, as the country has long been under sanctions. Who can offer it? The answer is simple: Gazprom or BP. So, Russians again! There is no sustainable energy concept for Balkan states without a Russian role. Everything else is questionable in terms of the economic interests of Balkan states.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!