e. You suggest that if Ukraine is to pursue the “European Choice,” it should choose to transport Caspian crude northward to Europe rather than Urals crude southward to Europe, regardless of the economic merits of the two options.
If the choice is to transport 5 million metric tons per annum (Mta) of Caspian crude northward, versus 9 Mta of Urals crude southward (according to the prospective volumes that you have reported), would the economic advantage not lie with the Southern route? Are you suggesting that Ukraine should subsidize the operations of this pipeline to accrue a geopolitical benefit from transporting Caspian crude rather than Russian crude?
It is important to note that each and every oil refinery in Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Eastern Germany has chosen to import nearly the entirety of its crude oil from Russia, despite chances to do otherwise. In selecting the most cost-effective sources for their crude oil imports, these refineries in the “New Europe” have chosen not to defer net profits to the geopolitics of their crude oil supplies.
Mr. Kuchma would serve the people of Ukraine well by de-politicizing the debate on Odessa-Brody and seeking the best economic use of the pipeline, based on an objective analysis of the pipeline’s immediate and long-term prospects for revenue. Indeed, this is not only good economic policy, but is also in Ukraine’s best geopolitical interest. It is through greater economic prosperity that Ukraine shall find its path to Europe.
Geoffrey Berlin
Kyiv
