Russia's termination of the South Stream natural gas pipeline project through Bulgaria to Europe was inevitable given the West's new Cold War. But there could be a silver lining to this cloud.

Major national and international infrastructure projects are key to long-term economic development. This is why the West intervenes to block projects deemed contrary to its perceived geopolitical interests. 

A century ago, a German plan for a railroad from Hamburg to Baghdad was a factor in the European imperial competition which led to World War I. Today international pipelines for oil and natural gas are seen by the West from a similar geopolitical perspective.

Washington's fixation on pipelines was evident during the administration of Bill Clinton and its support for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey as a means to undercut Russian hydrocarbon export routes.  Nothing has changed.

Russia presently supplies Europe with natural gas using several major international pipelines. The Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea brings gas to Germany, one major pipeline runs from Russia through Belarus into Poland, and another runs from Russia through Ukraine into eastern Europe.

The key consideration in the South Stream project was the instability and massive corruption in Ukraine, which called into question the reliability of the delivery of gas destined for Europe.

The disintegration of Ukraine since the US-sponsored regime change has further called into question the viability of major routes through Ukraine. Under such circumstances, South Stream should have been appealing to Europeans.

But South Stream was blocked under pressure from the US and the EU. Washington and Brussels aim to contain Russia and reduce its power, so they use acts of economic warfare such as sanctions and blocking infrastructure projects.

Moscow terminated the project, stating that it made no sense to continue given Western opposition. There is no reason to build a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria because Sofia pulled out of the project following Brussels' diktat.

But the South Stream infrastructure already built and in place in Russia can still be used. A change could redirect the pipeline route under the Black Sea to Turkey, as Putin said after meeting with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara in early December.

From Turkey, the gas can flow through Greece into Europe. This innovative solution is logical and is a win-win-win for Russia, Turkey, and Europe.

First and foremost, Ukraine is avoided as a route to Europe just as in the South Stream concept. Russia will continue its deliveries to Ukraine itself pending various negotiations. This is good business for Russia and is fair to Ukraine, which is a neighbor after all .

But Russia will not provide additional volumes of gas to Europe through Ukraine. Europe benefits from its energy flows not being subject to further instability and disintegration in Ukraine, and Russia will not suffer from diversions of its gas bound for Europe.

The Black Sea segment of the South Stream pipeline has not yet been built. There is no obstacle for its redirection to Turkey, and new designs can be built by new contractors.

The new pipeline route has major benefits for Turkey, which has a vision of becoming an energy corridor between the Middle East and Europe. Geography and historical factors certainly support this dream. 

The new Russian-Turkish initiative to redeploy the South Stream route under the Black Sea helps Turkey realize its dream and adds a powerful new dimension to it.

Turkey will take a portion of the gas, and the rest will be available for Europe. Greece, which is suffering economically, can benefit from being the energy gateway from Turkey. Greek and Turkish relations will benefit from closer economic relations and development.

The bold new Russian-Turkish energy initiative will help develop relations between Turkey and the BRICS countries as well as relations between Turkey and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in which it is already a dialogue partner.

The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn