Hungarian Minister Proposes Greece-Macedonia-Serbia Gas Pipeline as South Stream Alternative

Business » ENERGY | January 15, 2015, Thursday // 16:52| Views: | Comments: 49
  • Send to Kindle
Bulgaria: Hungarian Minister Proposes Greece-Macedonia-Serbia Gas Pipeline as South Stream Alternative Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto (L), and Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivica Dacic (R), during their meeting in Belgrade, Serbia, 14 January 2015. Photo by EPA/BGNES

The construction of a gas pipeline from Greece via Macedonia and Serbia to Hungary would be an alternative to the cancelled South Stream project, according to Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister.

Speaking after a Wednesday meeting with Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Zoran Mihajlovic in Belgrade, Szijjarto noted that an alternative gas supply route could go from Greece through Macedonia and Serbia to Hungary.

Stressing that the cancellation of the South Stream gas pipeline project had been bad news to Serbia and Hungary, he noted that the countries had no choice but to come up with a new solution.

Szijjarto, as cited by B92 News, informed that he would discuss an alternative gas supply route with Turkish officials in about 10 days.

He said he would discuss with European officials early next week the possibility of the European Commission including a project aimed at improving energy security in its investment package.

Energy » Be a reporter: Write and send your article
Tags: South Stream gas pipeline, gas supplies, energy security
Expats.bg All Are Welcome! Join Now!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Please, log in to post a comment.
» To the forumComments (49)
#49
GrueFsk - 4 Sep 2015 // 23:15:29

The town was in Romania and there were Romanians in the town. Nobody says that the Romanian name should come first or that the Bulgarian name should be removed. The matter has already been discussed, your arguments are not new and have been largely answered above. I don't think there's more to be said about that matter. I fail to see why it's a big deal, really. Constan?a has the Bulgarian name listed, H?r?ova, S?nnicolau Mare and Gala?i just as well, and I reckon that Giurgiu may be a good place to add it if you feel like it. What's all the fuss about removing perfectly relevant names? — Toдor Boжinov — 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice how frustrated the Romanian guys are

#48
GrueFsk - 4 Sep 2015 // 23:14:50

Actually, per WP naming convention, the Romanian name should be restored. The city was under Romanian rule for about 20 years (and it was actually one of the few places in Southern Dobruja with a Romanian minority before 1913), and during that time it was mentioned under the Romanian name by several English language sources, as this Google Book Search results (optimised for non-Romanian language results) shows. People should remember that such alternatives are only to help readers (and the encyclopaedia is to be optimised for them, not for editors), and, when properly mentioned, don't serve any nationalist purpose.Anonimu (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason not to include the name in Romanian. If other Bulgarian editors are reluctant to have the Romanian name in the lead, then we can always have a Name section. "On the border with Romania" is hardly an argument because that border is the Danube, by that logic we would have to add the Bulgarian names of anything in Romania along that river, and the Romanian population was never significant, but the 1913–1940 argument is solid, and so is the one about the battle. Todor?Bozhinov 06:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the Romanian name as it is in accordance with WP:naming and general practices. If the place does have a Romanian name, it is a relevant information here and must appear. Apart from big cities with long history, places usually have name in more than one language if they were inhabited or ruled by different ethnic communities over time, therefore, contoversies are also more frequent among editors. National sensitivity in this matter is not a reason to restrict appearance of information. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian name misleads that there are Romanian people in the town and that the town was in Romania for many historicall and maybe important years. If that Tutrkan was in Romania for 27 years is an argument to put a Romanian name, let's put Bulgarian names on the most of the cities in Romania, which were in the Bulgarian empire for hundreds of years, the same is for its location to the border, on that way we should put Bulgarian names in the Romanian towns to the border. If in 1913 for 27 years there were mixing of Romanians with Bulgarians, Tutrakan was Bulgarian inhabited for 1300 years. It should not be disputing a simple thing much time there are no reasons for the Romanian name. Pensionero 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

#47
GrueFsk - 4 Sep 2015 // 23:14:19

https://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Talk:Tutrakan

Romanian name[edit]
There is a dispute about the inclusion or not of the Romanian alternative name Turtucaia
Arguments for the addition of the name in Romanian:
it belonged to Romania for 27 years: 1913-1940
it is located on the border with Romania
3820 google books results
there is an article Battle of Turtucaia; Battle of Turtucaia has 600 to 800 views/month, approx the same no of visitors like the article about the city Tutrakan (Turtucaia) itself
In 1913, when Southern Dobruja was annexed by Romania, it was, alongside Silistra, one of the settlements with the highest no of Romanians [1](RomanianCadrilater (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
Arguments against the addition of the name in Romanian:
There is significant Romanian population.
It was part of Romania for a mere 27 years (or even less).
The fact that such an article exists (Battle of Turtucaia) does not determine what should be in this one.
Further: Mind that you've already broken WP:3rr. Any further reverts would be considered disruptive. --Laveol T 12:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There are more arguments to insert Romanian name here than to keep bulgarian for Constanta (79.117.159.91 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC))
You really have to start relying on wiki policies if you intend to edit here. What you're doing now is summarized here. For now - since you did not provide any other reasons for the addition, I'm removing the name. And once again - editing from different IPs to game the system is considered disruptive. Please, stop. --Laveol T 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I already agreed that the name might stay here after Anonimu's input. Please, do not change your comments since they represented the flaw of the conversation. And congrats on the new nationalistic username you got there. Way to go. But mind you that even if you create a dozen more accounts, you still won't be able to edit the article for some time. --Laveol T 09:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
congrats for your nationalistic behaviour, you knew from the beginning that the Romanian name should be included, but you refused it then(RomanianCadrilater (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
I was going to say that, can we please avoid usernames like User:RomanianCadrilater or User:BulgarianNorthernDobruja and stuff? I mean, it's ridiculous. Todor?Bozhinov 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

#46
GrueFski - 29 Aug 2015 // 15:31:46

Actually "tabla" instead of Latin "tabUla" used to mean "table" (instead of more ancient, classical Latin "mensa") is not only popular/vulgar Latin, it's probably either Latin in its final stage or even a Romance language in its very infancy. It however is not a precursor of Romanian though: neither Old Romanian nor the so-called "common Romanian" ("romana comuna" in Romanian)/"archi-Romanian" (straromana or stra-romana in Romanian)/"proto-Romanian" (protoromana or proto-romana in Romanian), a language that I have baptized either "East(ern) Roman" or "proto-/common East(ern) Roman" as opposed to "(proto-/common) West(ern) Roman" (the latter being the common language from which modern Ladin, Rumansh/Romansh and Friulian have been born, just like Common Roman has born Romanian, Aromanian/Armanian, Meglen(ite) Vlach and Istria(n) Vlach.

Update
"Actually the late Latin inscriptions found in Dobruja contain plenty of linguistic features that clearly show that was not a pre-Romanian Latin dialect. for instance, the use of popular/vulgar Latin tabla (=tabula) in the sense of mensa (=table) (Romanian mas?, Spanish/Portuguese mesa). According to geographic linguistics the lateral areas of any language tend to be more conservative, more archaic, that's why Romanian has the same word (etymologically) for "table" as Spanish/Portuguese, while French and Italian (central areas of the former Latin linguistic territory) use table/tavola. Other examples: Spanish/Portuguese rogar, Romanian ruga vs. French and Italian. The point is that Dobruja is as lateral as it gets, meaning the initial Romanian-language territory must have been somewhere else, even though it is quite difficult to identify it: very close to the south of its southernmost point there was no Romanization, at least according to Jirecek's line (there the Thracians got Hellenized, not Romanized/Latinized), whereas north of Dobruja there was no Latinization too, due to the withdrawal of Latin-speaking Roman citizens by emperor Aurelius. However not always the lateral areas are more conservative, oftentimes there are linguistic innovations occurring in one lateral territory that don't reach neither the center, nor the other lateral areas."
It appears that this language had been relatively different from Romanian: in Romanian the word for table is "mas?", in Spanish and Portuguese it's "mesa", in French "table", in Italian "tavola".

#45
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 09:32:16

Correction:
The point is that Dobruja is as lateral as it gets, meaning that, if the initial Romanian-language territory was somewhere else, it would be quite difficult to identify it: very close to the south of its southernmost point there was no Romanization, at least according to Jirecek's line (there the Thracians got Hellenized, not Romanized/Latinized), whereas north of Dobruja there was no Latinization too, due to the withdrawal of Latin-speaking Roman citizens by emperor Aurelius. However not always the lateral areas are more conservative, oftentimes there are linguistic innovations occurring in one lateral territory that don't reach neither the center, nor the other lateral areas.

Jirecek's line however is not perfect and flawless, according to Jirecek non-assimilated Thracians do not exist (all of them have either been Hellenized or Romanized), yet they do and they are called Albanians.
In fact when Slavs of Bulgarian type arrived in the Balkans there were still unassimilated Thracians (for instance in the area of present-day Plovdiv: the bessi tribe), which is another proof that Jirecek was wrong.

#44
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 09:26:15

However I am sure that linguistic chronology in conjunction with geographical linguistics will lead to the identification of Romanians' Urheimat (initial homeland).

#43
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 09:24:38

Actually the late Latin inscriptions found in Dobruja contain plenty of linguistic features that clearly show that was not a pre-Romanian Latin dialect.

for instance, the use of popular/vulgar Latin tabla (=tabula) in the sense of mensa (=table) (Romanian mas?, Spanish/Portuguese mesa). According to geographic linguistics the lateral areas of any language tend to be more conservative, more archaic, that's why Romanian has the same word (etymologically) for "table" as Spanish/Portuguese, while French and Italian (central areas of the former Latin linguistic territory) use table/tavola. Other examples: Spanish/Portuguese rogar, Romanian ruga vs. French and Italian. The point is that Dobruja is as lateral as it gets, meaning the initial Romanian-language territory must have been somewhere else, even though it is quite difficult to identify it: very close to the south of its southernmost point there was no Romanization, at least according to Jirecek's line (there the Thracians got Hellenized, not Romanized/Latinized), whereas north of Dobruja there was no Latinization too, due to the withdrawal of Latin-speaking Roman citizens by emperor Aurelius. However not always the lateral areas are more conservative, oftentimes there are linguistic innovations occurring in one lateral territory that don't reach neither the center, nor the other lateral areas.

#42
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 07:47:45

Let's say that the Romanized territory in Moesia where late Latin with Romanian features (Latin that would turn into Romanian) was spoken began at present-day tourism locality Zlatni Pjasyci in the southeast, all the way to the present-day village Bahovica near Lovec/Lovech in the southwest, to Somovit on the Danube, near Nikopol in the northwest and to the Danube Delta in the northeast. Let's assume these localities also existed during ancient times and they were the farthest localities in Moesia (to the southeast, southwest and so on) that ended up being Romanized/Latinized and where Latin language would become Romanian or would come to have, to develop specifically (among all Romance languages) Romanian linguistic traits. Or that these localities are the closest ones to the former ancient localities (in case the latter are now deserted, uninhabited) that represented the extreme geographical of that type of Latin language. This territory includes the entire Dobruja (North and South) + the entire non-Dobrujan territory that Romanians stole in 1913 (that Ro "historians" wrongly consider to be part of Dobruja). So if there was ONLY 1 locality with ONLY 1 indigenous (although he/she might not actually have been indigenous in any localities of Dobruja, having been born in other locality and then moved to its current one where, however, Turks or other ethnicity had been indigenous for some period of time, ever since they came to represent 100% of that localities' population, because the last non-Turk -- not necessarily Romanian -- died or moved away; let's say that had happened in 1852 -- the year when Turks had become indigenous) Romanian in Northern Dobruja back in 1878 (when Russia gifted Romania that territory), meaning if that's what Romanian continuity since the ancient times of Romanization got reduced to in 1878, that single unique sole Romanian had historical rights not only on Northern Dobruja or Dobruja (which are artificial/abstract concepts) but on the entire territory of former Roman province Moesia where pre-Romanian Latin was spoken a certain moment in the past. Back in 1878 villages with indigenous Ro population in Dobruja were extremely few, although they actually were more than 1 village with 1 indigenous Ro inhabitant but that doesn't affect my demonstration/argumentation.

#41
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 07:47:05

Actually the Romanized (not Romanianized!) territory south of the Danube didn't stretch all the way up to the Balkan range to the south, meaning that not the entire Roman province of Moesia was Romanized (Jirecek was slightly wrong). To the west, the limit of Romanianization on Moesia's territory is not known, some Romanian "historians" only claim that the territory of early Romanian language or late Latin with Romanian features was only restricted to Moesia Inferior, Moesia Superior not having been Romanized at all (or very feebly) or the Romanization there has resulted in another Romance language from Romanian. However that doesn't change my argumentation/demonstration.

#40
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 06:59:10

Obviously 1 locality with at least one 1 indigenous Romanians out of total 75-85 localities of Mangalia district (or out of the total x Babadag/y Constanta/z Cernavoda district ones) does not mean the entire Mangalia/Babadag/Constanta/Cernavoda districts should belong to Romania. Districts are artificial, abstract concepts. They don't exist in real life. The same district can contain 75 localities in 1660 and 85 in 1780, without necessarily those 75 having to be included into those 85. Some of those 75 could have belonged to other/neighboring districts in 1660, without necessarily those 85-75=10 localities in 1780 having to be recent ones, founded after 1660 and so on.

#39
GrueFski - 25 Aug 2015 // 06:58:34

So: the Ro population of Mangalia district was 35 strong in 1880. Let's assume that district was made up of 75 localities in the same year (Mangalia town + 74 villages/hamlets). The Ro population of Mangalia town consisted probably of "much" more than 1 inhabitants: very probably at least 5 Romanians there. This means that only some 30-31 localities had a least 1 Romanians as its inhabitant(s). Was there at least 1 village with 1 or more indigenous Romanian(s) amid them? Technically yes, due to the fact that the many members of the indigenous Muslim population (Tatars and Turks) have temporarily fled the Russian army during the 1877-8 war; as far as I know the Russian army's commanders themselves had emptied large portions of Dobruja of Muslim population for military purposes. Technically it is possible for some villages to have been completely abandoned or deserted by its entire (Muslim) population and technically it is also possible for some Romanian shepherd(s) to have been the first one(s) to settle in the already-uninhabited locality. As for indigenous Romanians born in Mangalia villages to Romanian parents also born in the same villages as their offspring(s): this is impossible. The more ancient Ro population of Dobruja (=the one that can be traced back documentwise for a few centuries ) lived near the Danube, in villages located directly on Danube or, more rarely, in more inner villages, usually belonging to the next (second) line of villages (after the Danube ones) or (in very rare cases) to the third one. Only in the extreme north of Dobruja, in the Danube Delta and right south of it (the north part of present-day Tulcea county), was the Ro ancient (ancient, not indigenous!!! the 2 things are different) population sort of numerous (both in numbers of people and localities with Ro majority) and the predominantly Ro villages reached farther/deeper inside than the first 2-3 closest to Danube lines of villages.

#38
GrueFski - 18 Aug 2015 // 19:19:06

1+2+3+4 => Romanians are "indigenous" in the entire (or almost entire) Moesia. So what if there are no indigenous Romanians in the present-day Bulgarian territory of the former Roman province of Moesia (except for "South Dobruja" of course, where Romanian "historians" claim Romanians are indigenous)??? It doesn't really matter: there were no indigenous Romanians in Mangalia kaza of North Dobruja back in 1878-1880 too, but that "is irrelevant" since, according to Romanians "historians'" "logic", only entire historical regions/provinces matter, not individual parts of them.
Also Romanians' "indigenousness" in their portion of Moesia (that is the real North Dobruja + the extreme southwestern part of Constanta county, southwest of Rasova, combined the 2 are erroneously known as North Dobruja to Romanian "historians") is "older", "longer", "lengthier", of a "greater duration" than Bulgarians' "indigenousness" in their portion of Moesia (South Dobruja + the rest of Bulgarian Moesia) and also than Serbs' "indigenousness" in their portion of Moesia, so that when it comes to the entire region Moesia (keyword entire) the only ethnicity that really is indigenous is the Romanian one.

#37
GrueFski - 18 Aug 2015 // 19:04:49

But the only indigenousness that matters is the general one, the one of an entire historical region, not the ones for the different localities of the respective region, Romanian "historians" will counter. No, it isn't. It's like saying that Bulgarian (and also Turkish) Thrace should belong to Greece since Greeks are indigenous there, even though in 99% of those 2 regions' localities the indigenous ones are the non-Greeks (Bulgarians, Turks, maybe even Gypsies for Bulgarian Thrace; Turks, Muslim Bulgarians (Pomaks), maybe even Gipsies, Tatars, Albanians for Turkish Thrace). Technically, it is possible that there will only be 1 Greek left in Bulgarian/Turkish Thrace. He/She might not even be indigenous in the locality where he/she lives. Maybe he/she was born in another locality, at some point in time left it (him/her being the only indigenous Greek left in that locality -- the locality of his/her birth), and moved to another locality with no Greeks (where, therefore, a non-Greek ethnicity was the indigenous one). Now (s)he be indigenous in the entire Bulgarian/Turkish Thrace (according to the "logic" of Romanian "historians") but (s)he is no longer indigenous in any locality of either one of those two territories.
Not to mention that according to this "logic", Romanians have "historical" "rights" not only to Bulgarian "South Dobruja" but also to the entire territory of present-day Bulgaria where Romanization occured (that's the entire or almost the entire Bulgarian territory located north of the Balkans range, that is north of Jirecek line, basically the entire or nearly the whole Bulgarian territory that was formerly part of the Roman Empire under the name of Moesia province/region). The initial, original, first and therefore the genuine Dobruja is the Roman province Scythia Minor, which is in fact a sub-province of the Moesia province that was later carved out of Moesia inferior, the latter being a sub-province of Moesia proper. So we have:
1. Scythia Minor is a later/newer/more recent Roman province than Moesia (Inferior)
2. Scythia Minor's territory is 100% geographically included in the territory of Moesia (Inferior)
3. Romanization of local Thracian, Greek and other populations occurred on the entire territory of Moesia, not only in Scythia Minor, Moesia being located north of Jirecek's line (meaning in the Romanized territory of the Balkan Peninsula)
4. (Let's say that) Romanians are "indigenous" on the territory of the former Roman province of Scythia Minor (let's assume that's true, even though it isn't, for the sake of the demonstration)

#36
GrueFski - 18 Aug 2015 // 14:06:55

"I can't remember if any Mangalia villages remained in Bulgaria or all of them became part of Romania in 1878."

Correction: Autonomous Bulgaria within the Ottoman Empire.
Although I'm pretty sure no Balchik district locality became Romanian in 1878 (Balchik district/kaza was right to the south of Mangalia district, while Constanta district was located right to the north of Mangalia one).
This means that there were practically no indigenous (another word for indigenous is autochthonous), no autochthonous Romanians in the entire Mangalia district in 1877 (those 35 Romanians were newcomers, therefore non-indigenous). This Mangalia district should have remained Turkish (located in autonomous Bulgaria). Upon Bulgaria's becoming independent it would have become Bulgarian or maybe stayed Turkish, a sort of Ottoman Kaliningrad. It wouldn't have constituted an enclave since it has sea outlet, plus it would have had 2 land neighbors too, not only 1 water neighbor (the Black Sea): Bulgaria and Romania.
Nowadays in almost all localities located on the territory of the former Mangalia kaza Romanians are indigenous, since the Tatars and Turks have left, Bulgarians too have left during the 1940-1 Bg-Ro population exchange, Germans too have left during WW2 (Hitler's "Heim-ins-Reich" policy), so have J ews and many Greeks and others during communism period. Romanians have therefore become indigenous in nearly all localities of North Dobrudja.
Something similar probably happened in Kosovo in 1999-2000. All Serbs from the localities where they still were indigenous yet very few left those localities and fled either to Serbia or to the Kosovo localities with a high percentage of Serbs upon losing the war with NATO and KLA/UCK, making Albanians indigenous in an even greater number of Kosovo localities than before Milosevic's attempt at anti-Albanian Serbian genocide.
But no indigenousness is eternal. Under the right historical circumstances not Romanians but other ethnicity/nation might become indigenous there, in the future. So much for Romanian " historians' " emphasis on indigenousness.

#35
GrueFski - 18 Aug 2015 // 12:11:28

Also the ridiculously pro-Romanian biased data from some "census" carried out by Romanians (never?) in North Dobrudja in 1877 or 1878, "census" meant to justify their future territorial gift received from the "wicked" Russians gives no Romanians for Constanta district, which is right north of the Mangalia one. The data for Mangalia kaza are not included in this "census". This "statistic" is so ludicrous it gives a total of about 225 000 inhabitants for Tulcha sanjak, that is about 250 000 if one counts in the inhabitants of the localities in Silistra sanjak that became part of Romania (now in the southeast part of Constanta county in Romania) when in fact the population of future Romanian Dobrudja (that is North Dobruja) was about 100 000 in 1877. North Dobruja is made up of the former Tulcha sanjak + a few dozen localities of the Silistra sanjak + Mangalia district (part of Varna sanjak). I can't remember if any Mangalia villages remained in Bulgaria or all of them became part of Romania in 1878. The data of this "census" can be found in Kemal Karpat's book, on page 199 ("Population of 'Dobruca', 1878")

Чия е Добруджа?

nauka(dot)bg/forum/index.php?showtopic=16939

Kemal Karpat's entire book available online
Ottoman Population 1830-1914

m(dot)friendfeed-media(dot)com/1d4fdaf358c69c4c02100b94370454097403f76a

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria