The issue here seems unrelated to Gazprom, in that the Economists lambasts "national companies" (read: the evil French government) for making money off domestic customers.

I'd've thought that profits from sale by national companies goes into the national coffers, and therefore towards the public good, rather than into the hands of already rich Capitalists. I don't see how this would be a bad thing... Why is profit only good if it lands in private hands? Thus, a nationalised arrangement, while perhaps not benefiting 'consumers' certainly benefits 'citizen-persons', who are the ones the 'nation state' ought to care for, right?

For all its swagger, Russia is short of gas, a problem that is already affecting its electricity-generation capacity. This does not reflect any lack of reserves--Russia has the world's biggest--but rather a longstanding failure to invest enough in their development.

Could there be some long term strategic benefit to not develop gas fields as quickly as possible? I mean, the stuff will run out some day, right? If the fields are developed then the gas would be there, available for immediate consumption, driving demand higher. Whereas unavailability of all the gas we could schlurp ought to stimulate development of alternate energy sources, which can only be a good thing.

So, hey, economist guys, maybe you should know to think that the gas fields of Russia are not an all you can schlurp buffet...

(Thanks for enduring in bringing these atrocious pieces to our attention, Jérôme. I do enjoy the rage they engender...)