"What do they want? Gas or independence from Russia?"

Recently, negotiations began between the EU and Russia on a new strategic cooperation agreement. The 54-year-old Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU, is reluctant to overdramatise the energy policy questions that are at the centre of the discussions.

HVG: The EU is Russia's major trade partner, and for the EU, Russia is in third place after the US and China. An increasing share of the EU's energy is coming from Russia. But the relationship between the two parties is very tense. Why?

V. Ch.: In a globalising, multi-polar world, we're not just partners, but competitors as well. I wouldn't say we have a cold relationship, but it's complicated, because it spans so many areas. Trade between the two sides runs to around $300bn a year. Our relations also incorporate the humanitarian sphere - education, research and culture, as well as foreign and security policy. It causes problems for all of the EU's external partners that there is a grey area between areas of EU competence and those areas reserved for the member states. Enlargement hasn't improved this situation, because some new member states - I'm not thinking of Hungary, necessarily - have put questions on the agenda relating to Russia-EU relations that are, in our view, not strictly bilateral, and which relates to certain historical wounds.

HVG: In Brussels, people see the problem as being Russia's attempt under Vladimir Putin's presidency to become a great power in a way very reminiscent of the foreign policy of the Soviet times.

V. Ch.: The principles of Russian foreign policy haven't changed, but we have more options. Russia is going through an economic boom, giving us more money for international cooperation, for providing aid, for taking part in peacekeeping operations. So it's natural that Russia is more focused on playing the role that international relations and its history destine it to. You can reach an agreement with Russia, but you can't set ultimatums.

HVG: Energy policy is at the centre of EU-Russian relations, but it's like a dialogue of the deaf. The EU is aiming to liberalise the transit of energy over Russia's territory and would like more protection for European investments in the country. Moscow is concerned that the EU won't allow Russian energy companies into its internal market. What kind of solutions is Russia thinking of?

Vladimir Chizhov © László Vida

V. Ch.: I don't want to overdramatise the energy issue. We think the problem is that the EU doesn't know what it wants. The European Commission wants to split up the vertically integrated energy companies and liberalise the market, while certain member states want "national champions." The European gas market developed during the Cold War, but the west European politicians were far-sighted enough to put aside the ideological oppositions and opt for long-term cooperation with the Soviet Union. The US didn't like this at the time. Imagine what we would have now if western Europe hasn't taken the strategic decision in the 60s and 70s and had opted for liberalisation? Would Europe be heated with wood? Energy is not a vegetable market where people take their wares in the morning and leave at noon with their earnings. It costs a fortune to develop an oil or gas field before you start selling the fuel. So it's not fair to talk only about security of supply, because stable supply needs stable transit and stable demand. Every investor wants to be sure that he will have a buyer for his produce in 15 or 20 years' time.

HVG: There won't be any problem with demand - the issue is transit. Three big gas pipelines are planned: North and South Stream, both Russian-inspired projects, and Nabucco, which is supported by the EU. What's Russia's view of the latter?

V. Ch.: Given growth in European gas consumption, North and South Stream and Nabucco as well as another half dozen other pipelines will all be needed. The point is to have gas flowing inside them. For the time being, the main difference between South Stream and Nabucco is that, while the former will definitely have gas in it, there is a question mark over whether Nabucco can be filled. I wouldn't advise the project's supporters to count on Azerbaidzhan, because they don't have enough gas. Nabucco would make sense if it also carried Iranian gas. But for that, Europe has to decide whether it wants to bomb Iran or buy gas from it.