The gas crisis should be another argument for Moldova that it is vitally interested in the development of a strategic partnership with Ukraine, including for the prevention of similar effects of such crises for the future. This is the opinion of the analyst Andrei Popov, executive director of the Foreign Policy Association (FPA). Andrei Popov told Info-Prim Neo that Ukraine is “a veritable strategic shelter for Moldova”. Ukraine’s interests are almost entirely similar to those of Moldova both concerning the resolution of the Transnistrian conflict and the efficient ensuring of the European course or the energy security. “On the peak of the crisis, when the panic seemed to approach its climax in Chisinau and the countdown to the total ceasing of gas supply started, Ukraine took the decision to resume gas supply to Moldova and Bulgaria from its own reserves. Although this fact is not widely known, in January 2006, when we had just signed the new contract with Gazprom, we were assisted by our north-east neighbor in a similar manner for several days”, the FPA executive director asserted. According tot the expert, Moldova’s options concerning the diversification of its gas supply sources are rather limited. In his opinion, Romania wouldn’t be able from the technical point of view to fully ensure the supply of gas to Moldova. “The only external way of access to gas pipes Romania has is that through which gas reaches Romania via Moldova. In the case of interruptions like this one, it seems to me technically impossible that Romania would pump the gas in the opposite direction – from west to east – thought the same pipe. However we should consider the possibility of building a branch from the internal network of Romania to Moldova, especially for the Ungheni region, which is the most vulnerable”, the analyst opined. „Up until 1989 the Iasi region was an intensively industrialized zone as well as a large gas consumer. Most of the industries in the area were closed afterwards, but the diameter of the gas pipeline which supplies Iasi with gas is very big and could provide the possibility of adjusting the internal pipeline system of Romania with the Ungheni region. Another solution, complimentary to the previously mentioned, would be the construction of internal reservoirs for storing gas. “Moldova is 100% dependent upon the gas supply from Russia. At the same time it is a transit country which is beneficial for us. 20 billion cu m of gas transit Moldova towards Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and West Balkans which makes Moldova an important figure which cannot be neglected. On the one hand, this means that only against Moldova no sanctions and blockages can be applied. On the other hand though, this fact transforms us into hostages in the perspective of any eventual conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, because the pipeline passes through Ukraine”, Andrei Popov asserts. The director of FPA also stated that he has nothing to reproach to the authorities concerning their actions during the gas crisis: „Realistically speaking, in the situation of a crisis which affected directly and violently more than 10 European states, Moldova has nothing to contribute with, in the political-diplomatic dimension, to the resolution of the crisis”. At the same time, the analyst remarks the quite odd approach of the Moldova electronic media in covering the situation in Transnistria as a result of the halt in gas supplies. All attention was focused on what happens in the eight villages in Dubasari district, which are still under the control of the Moldovan government, without paying attention to the sufferings of the other Transnistrian communities. “I think they've missed a good opportunity to emphasize that Transnistria is part of our country, an opportunity to show compassion and solidarity with the population living on the left bank of the Nistru...” According to Andrei Popov, despite appearances that this is an economic dispute between Gazprom and Ukraine, it is in essence a conflict with strong geopolitical and geoeconomic implications. “In the first part of the conflict, Russia wanted to discredit Ukraine as a transit country so as to eventually take over the entire transmission system and to bring extra arguments to Europe on the need to accelerate construction of the two alternative gas pipelines – through the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, bypassing Ukraine. At the second stage, like it happened in the case of the war with Georgia, emotions came out and the Kremlin raised the bet without properly calculating the consequences. The threats that Russia would increase gas prices for Ukraine to match the European rates and the irresolute position concerning the memorandum on the European monitors have damaged Russia's reputation”. In the opinion of the analyst, the difference from 2006 when the first stage unfolded is the fact that Europe wasn't hit that badly and supplies reduced insignificantly for just two or three countries, while in 2009 the blow was much stronger and involved much more countries. Secondly, in 2006 Europe was still under the impression of the “Orange revolution” and was almost unconditionally behind Ukraine, treating Russia as an “aggressor” which used its gas resources as an energy weapon. In these three years, Europe got a little tired of the fratricide skirmishes between the Ukrainian leaders and seems to have gotten used to such yearend crises and paid little attention to the developments until it ended up without gas. It is now not so obvious that there is only one party to blame and that that might be Russia. However, the conclusion remains that Russia is the key problem and that excessive dependence of the European Union on Russian gas looms as the number one security issue that needs an urgent and effective remedy. However, we must admit that the image of Ukraine is rather damaged, too, after this crisis. And the enduring political crisis and the rivalries between the president and the prime minister put Ukraine into a bad light, of which Russia took full advantage in its media”. At the same time, the crisis can have good effects as well, thinks Popov: “After this crisis, Europe will have an acute sense of vulnerability and will take stronger action to find solutions, including alternative gas routes, like the Nabucco, or alternative energy resources, like atomic energy or liquefied gas”.