Recent attempts to politicize the energy debate have become a matter of serious concern. There is a widespread assumption that Russia is trying to gain unseemly political dividends out of its relationship with other countries in the energy sphere. Some even suggest that Moscow is resorting to its vast energy resources as "a new weapon" to intimidate unruly neighbors and make them compliant. At the core of such allegations is Russia's move away from Soviet-style arrangements, when natural gas was sold to neighbors at heavily subsidized prices, to a new pricing mechanism based on the market. While this move was branded by the U.S. media and some policymakers as politically motivated, to any unbiased observer the opposite would make more sense. To stick to the old ways, selling gas at discounted prices - losing billions of dollars a year-could hardly be justified by anything but political considerations.

Over the last 15 years, the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union were treated differently from other European consumers of our energy: our pricing policy toward some of them was shaped by our history of interdependence and our hopes for expanded integration with Russia. That policy was inherently transitional – a temporary step to help former "roommates." Selling them energy at bargain prices indefinitely does not merely defy common sense, it means subsidizing entire industries of sovereign countries. It also hurts the interests of our energy companies' shareholders.

Now that the Russian government has switched to a universal pricing formula dictated by the market, as evidenced in a recent, widely debated natural gas deal, Russia is being accused of politicizing the energy issue. The irony is that such accusations are coming from those who had previously lectured us on the need for a speedy transition to market principles. I hope that no sensible observer questions why we are renouncing the policy of subsidizing our neighbors. But we continue to see attempts to look for political undertones in this totally pragmatic approach.

Regrettably, alongside old-time rhetoric, which tends to represent today's Russia in the same way as the Soviet Union, a Blame Russia First syndrome is taking hold. It has even come down to accusations that unknown culprits in Russia had blown up power lines and gas pipelines in its own territory, allegedly in an attempt to punish Tbilisi by cutting off Russian energy supplies. The truth is that these installations had been sabotaged, and Russian emergency crews risked their lives in minus-30-degree temperatures to restore supplies. And yet Russia is portrayed as the guilty party. In the same way, Russia's efforts to diversify gas supply routes to Europe, particularly the plans to build a Northern European Pipeline under the Baltic Sea, have been perceived as a political game against some neighbors. The true reason is to guarantee consistent supplies to all our consumers, in Western Europe and neighboring countries.

This approach applies to nuclear energy as well. Russia has proposed to set up a network of centers for producing enriched uranium, equally accessible to all who wish to develop atomic energy. The proposal may involve having Russia and the U.S. provide nuclear reactor fuel to other countries to be used in nuclear power plants. The spent fuel would be taken back to prevent its use in weapons.

I was present at the State of the Union address when President Bush talked of America's addiction to oil, often imported from unstable parts of the world. He emphasized that to keep the U.S. competitive, affordable energy was needed. That is why the ongoing energy dialogue between our countries is important. The benefits are mutual: The U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on oil from traditional sources and Russia needs new markets for its enormous energy reserves. It is imperative that politicization of the energy debate does not get in the way of this dialogue and practical cooperation.

Russia and the U.S. should vigorously work together to create a new mode of interaction on energy. Russia, as current chairman of G-8, has proposed to focus on international energy security at the forthcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg. The issue has also been at the top of Russian-U.S. agenda at government and industry levels.

Oil and other hydrocarbons make up a major share of Russia-U.S. bilateral trade. Last year, Russian oil supplies to the U.S. reached an unprecedented 160 million barrels. In real terms, our energy cooperation is way below its potential. We, however, do see encouraging signs of a breakthrough in our energy relationship. The Sakhalin-1 project is a joint venture with Exxon Mobil and other foreign companies, which will reach its target production levels this year. Russia's Lukoil and ConocoPhillips are strengthening their strategic alliance, including joint development of the Timan Pechora oil field in Siberia, expected to produce 200,000 barrels a day by 2008.

Liquefied natural gas is another opportunity: Last September, the first tanker with Russian LNG docked at Cove Point terminal in Maryland. Five more are expected this year, which would propel Russia to the top five LNG suppliers to the U.S. A totally new dimension to our energy interaction will be added when Gazprom names an international consortium that will take control of the Shtockman natural gas field in Russia's Arctic north.

This joint venture is expected to provide a quarter of U.S. natural gas imports by 2020. Shtockman will also play a role as a model to develop prospective hydrocarbon reserves in Eastern Siberia and the Arctic offshore. We welcome further involvement of U.S. energy companies in these new projects in the hope that it will ensure a robust transfer of technological know-how and managerial skills and thus higher productivity and greater competitiveness of these fields.

In the long run, such interaction can attract enormous investment into the energy industry, contributing to the development of environment-friendly infrastructure. Above all, it will be a key element in the overall stability of the world energy markets. The bottom line is that the stability of international energy markets will be better served by sound energy policy, not politicized energy discussions. That is why President Putin is urging our partners to redouble efforts to ensure global energy security, which has a direct impact on the social and economic development of all countries.