over-emphasising the possibility, Professor Goldman almost completely misses an important truth too often overlooked: Russia's energy reserves and Europe's demand are a very happy match.

True, Russia could leave Europe in the dark by selling to China and India, although switching its major routes would be an almighty upheaval. But please let's not forget that Europe pays top dollar for Russia's black stuff and it pays on time. Europe may have fears about being over-dependent on Russia as a consumer, but Russia is, I suspect, even more wary of becoming over-dependent as a supplier to China. Furthermore, as Goldman himself concedes, Russia is dependent on Western technology to maintain its high levels of production. Turn your back on the West and it might not be long before your wells grind to a halt. At the very least, Russia would suffer a severe slump in output.

Goldman believes that we should diversify our energy sources - in itself a perfectly reasonable idea. But while Russia is vindictive, the countries he recommends we deal with

instead - Algeria and Iran - are hardly bastions of rectitude. Indeed some Western countries might be about to go to war with one of them.

The starting point to this debate should not be an alarmist assertion that Russia as an energy supplier is uniquely dangerous and nasty. It isn't. Not only are the great majority of global energy suppliers both nasty and dangerous, they are all fully aware of the huge influence and wealth their resources confer on them - or on their elites, at least. Ordinary folk are generally locked in a state of near penury. Given that, we should approach them with a combination of guile and respect. Russia really is like a bear - talk nicely to it and give it a bit of honey, and you'd be surprised how manageable it is. Poke it in the eye and it will come after you. And angry bears can inflict very serious damage indeed.