Why will Baku be a key destination for Russian gas exports?

By the end of the year, Russian gas will be flowing into Europe.

And this will be the case for at least a decade.

But if Russia wants to ensure that its gas supply to Europe is secure, it will need to have a supply network of its own.

In the meantime, it can’t just rely on Gazprom.

The company is already facing competition from Chinese companies, which want to increase their share of the market, while Europe is increasingly concerned about the prospect of a gas glut in Russia.

The Kremlin, however, wants to build its own network of gas pipelines to European markets.

It has set aside a billion euros ($5 billion) to develop its own gas infrastructure.

So far, the government has invested about 40 billion roubles ($8 billion) in the project.

But it is not clear whether the funds will be sufficient to secure European gas.

“It’s difficult to say,” says Yury Tkachenko, the head of the energy department of the State Duma.

“We need to build our own network.”

The project is expected to be completed by the end, but in order to meet demand, Russia needs to export some of its gas.

A recent report from the European Commission warned that Russia was “likely to be short-changed in this regard”.

And so far, Gazprom has refused to commit to building a pipeline to Europe.

It’s not just Europe that needs to take the lead in building a new gas pipeline.

Other countries are also considering building new pipelines, which could help boost supplies.

In February, the Russian energy company Gazprom Neft said it would build an extension to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Germany, and the Czech Republic is planning to do the same.

But the project is in a delicate state.

In addition to being the largest project in Russia’s history, Nord Stream 1 was built as a joint venture between Gazprom and the German state of Norddeutsche Bahn.

The project has never received the necessary state approval, and so has been stalled.

It could be a problem for Gazprom as well.

The Nord Stream project is an ambitious project and has been criticized for being overly ambitious.

It would cost a total of 1.6 billion euros, and in a few years, that amount would double to 2.5 billion.

The construction of a new pipeline to the EU could prove even more expensive.

“The project should not be built in such a hurry,” says Pavel Matveev, a partner at the consultancy firm Eurasia Group.

“If you build it at the expense of the economy, you can only be in a disadvantageous position.”

For Russia, the Nord stream pipeline could be seen as a bridge between Europe and the United States.

The US has long been one of Russia’s biggest customers, and Russia would like to expand its gas trade with the US.

And it would be a good way to boost its gas exports, which have been falling for years.

But Europe has been worried about a glut of gas in Russia, and has begun to ramp up sanctions against the country.

It also wants to avoid a repeat of the 2014 Ukraine crisis, in which Russia’s state-owned energy company Sibur accused the European Union of blocking a pipeline that would have helped to pump Russian gas into Europe from Ukraine.

Russia, meanwhile, is still in the process of building a massive gas pipeline to Turkey, which would be the biggest pipeline to any country outside of Russia.

But Gazprom is also building a second, more expensive pipeline to Bulgaria, which is about half the length of Nord Stream.

Gazprom’s pipeline is also planned to run from Turkmenistan through Kazakhstan to Europe, and it has already started construction on the second section of the pipeline, which will carry Russian gas to Germany.

But both pipelines are in the early stages of construction.

The project has also been controversial in the West.

In October, US President Donald Trump signed a decree to impose sanctions on Gazepost, the state-controlled energy company, because it was building the Nordstream pipeline.

In response, Gazepoost filed a lawsuit against the US and Europe, arguing that the sanctions were “an unconstitutional act” against the company.

But since then, the company has been allowed to continue building the pipeline.