And now Gazprom drops anchor

[outcast]

This week Gazprom announced a deal with PetroVietnam to jointly develop a couple of natural gas fields off the coast of Vietnam, in one of the multitude of South China Sea areas claimed by China.


My thoughts: Given that Gazprom is pretty much an appendedge of the Kremlin this is Russia basically giving China the finger. It would seem that China's bellicosity is costing it some friends, first Burma and now this. But I also don't believe they will stop, there's too much at stake for them politically.

Oh, and I did have a good link to this but my post count is too low to post it, so you'll have to find it yourself. Just Google Gazprom Vietnam oilwatch, it should be the first link. Sorry.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This week Gazprom announced a deal with PetroVietnam to jointly develop a couple of natural gas fields off the coast of Vietnam, in one of the multitude of South China Sea areas claimed by China.


My thoughts: Given that Gazprom is pretty much an appendedge of the Kremlin this is Russia basically giving China the finger. It would seem that China's bellicosity is costing it some friends, first Burma and now this. But I also don't believe they will stop, there's too much at stake for them politically.

Oh, and I did have a good link to this but my post count is too low to post it, so you'll have to find it yourself. Just Google Gazprom Vietnam oilwatch, it should be the first link. Sorry.

its more complex than this

china is facing a south eastern ring of nations who are prepared to stand their ground, and all of them have been lifting their military and diplomatic links with countries that were former enemies or were "NG" after some idealogical and political rifts

the russians would naturally see the opportunity to re-establish ties (Can Ranh Bay is still highly desirable) and are confident that the chinese are not going to push them too hard - - it also provides the russians with the opportunity to fall into any vacuum that the US doesn't attend to.

The SC sea is going to be a cause of grief sooner rather than later - esp in 3-5 years time.

 

[Marc 1]

The SC sea is going to be a cause of grief sooner rather than later - esp in 3-5 years time.

Right at about the time the pollies are putting our military back into hibernation... The lessons of the past are never absorbed by poilticians.

 

[outcast]

its more complex than this

china is facing a south eastern ring of nations who are prepared to stand their ground, and all of them have been lifting their military and diplomatic links with countries that were former enemies or were "NG" after some idealogical and political rifts

To what extent are they integrating? A problem is that those other nations also have competing claims with eachother in the SC. Until they form a NATO-ish style alliance China will likely continue to see them as weak and divided.

Although a potentially complicating factor is that mutual defense treaty of ours with the Phillipines, are we going to enforce it? If they think we wont this may end up making them more likely to do something they'll regret.

the russians would naturally see the opportunity to re-establish ties (Can Ranh Bay is still highly desirable) and are confident that the chinese are not going to push them too hard - - it also provides the russians with the opportunity to fall into any vacuum that the US doesn't attend to.

Indeed, but China has been trying to be partners with Russia. Also considering its tendency towards "my way or the highway" approach to policy making, I'm not sure if they saw this move coming.

The SC sea is going to be a cause of grief sooner rather than later - esp in 3-5 years time.

I agree completely. I can't help but be reminded of Germany's foreign policy under Wilhem II. Not only did it embark on a major arms race with its neighors (sort of like the race between China and India today) it also pursued an aggressive and bellicouse foreign policy, sparking a number of crises and driving away all of its friends. Except for the decrepit Austria-Hungry and Ottoman empires of course.

Germany at that time was a leading industrial power with the best army and second best navy. It was also one of the major centers for science and innovation, with many world class companies. Fortunately for us China, at least as it stands in the forseeable future, is not this.

Right at about the time the pollies are putting our military back into hibernation... The lessons of the past are never absorbed by poilticians.

Given that the proposed cuts are only $35 billion a year out of a total of $700+ billion a year, I wouldn't be too concerned. Despite the hemming and hawing I suspect the DoD will be able to survive with 5% less.

 

[Marc 1]

Given that the proposed cuts are only $35 billion a year out of a total of $700+ billion a year, I wouldn't be too concerned. Despite the hemming and hawing I suspect the DoD will be able to survive with 5% less.

The cuts you are talking about are far larger than our total defence budget. The "land of Oz" bit on the left side is a shorthand way of saying Australia.

I was in the military the last time the government starved us of dollars - it's hard to do realistic training when you don't even have the required blank rounds to fire your weapons, the track km or spare parts to keep an A or B veh fleet running let alone the expensive things like air hours or track km. These types of cutbacks tend to also have the follow on effect when highly trained experienced skilled soldiers/sailors and airmen are effectively neutered, they tend to leave - that's the bigger hit to capability. The money can be restored at the stroke of a pen, vehicles and equipment can be purchased or put back into service within weeks or months, however replacing a 12-15 year experience NCO is a very different matter.

That 5% cut in dollars is the difference between retaining capabilities and losing far more that 5% in combat power.

 

[Sampanviking]

I doubt that Beijing is overly concerned by this development.
A lot of commentators have tried to make Capital out of this, but few of them are true Orientalist.

I have no doubt that there is considerable distance between Chinese public statements and what they are prepared to accept on the ground. Russia and China are indeed forging a Strategic Partnership that is at the heart of slowly building a proper "Asian Union" and so this move still keeps these energy reserves within that Orbit.

It would have been a very different matter had it been Enron, Texaco, Shell or BP etc

If Russia does indeed start to develop energy interests in the South China Sea, then this will also give it a genuine security interest in the region as well and bring Russia; as another partner, into the current discussions.

Ultimately I think China would see that as a benefit as it opens the door for a strategic side step if the policy of bilateral negotiation is negated by opposition and instead becomes a regional policy, albeit ASEAN or any other new littoral body, specifically set up to deal with the SCS maritime disputes.
China would be able to respond by Internationalising on its own side, probably via the SCO.

 

[Feanor]

My thoughts: Given that Gazprom is pretty much an appendedge of the Kremlin this is Russia basically giving China the finger.

No. The opposite was true, roughly 5 years ago. However at this point the government and Gazprom have become separate, albeit closely related entities. This is a case of Gazprom acting aggressively, with the confidence that the weight of Russian foreign policy weight behind them.

It would seem that China's bellicosity is costing it some friends, first Burma and now this. But I also don't believe they will stop, there's too much at stake for them politically.

China has done quite a few things to irritate the Russian elites. Instead of playing the role of junior, or at the very least equal, partner, it has tried to play the senior partner in its relationship with Russia. The result has been a fundamental lack of acceptance (note, not a lack of understanding) on the part of Russian elites. That's why Russia is hesitant to put long term joint programs into play, with China.

 

[outcast]

I doubt that Beijing is overly concerned by this development.
A lot of commentators have tried to make Capital out of this, but few of them are true Orientalist.

I have no doubt that there is considerable distance between Chinese public statements and what they are prepared to accept on the ground. Russia and China are indeed forging a Strategic Partnership that is at the heart of slowly building a proper "Asian Union" and so this move still keeps these energy reserves within that Orbit.

It would have been a very different matter had it been Enron, Texaco, Shell or BP etc

If Russia does indeed start to develop energy interests in the South China Sea, then this will also give it a genuine security interest in the region as well and bring Russia; as another partner, into the current discussions.

Ultimately I think China would see that as a benefit as it opens the door for a strategic side step if the policy of bilateral negotiation is negated by opposition and instead becomes a regional policy, albeit ASEAN or any other new littoral body, specifically set up to deal with the SCS maritime disputes.
China would be able to respond by Internationalising on its own side, probably via the SCO.

Except that what's ultimately the biggest driving factor behind China's actions is its desire to restore its dominance of the region. When combined with their obsession of looking strong and controlling everything within their claims, no compromise with anyone is possible. For anyone other than a chinese energy company to develop the region is considered a loss of face.

If Gazprom was doing this independently, then you might be onto something. But given that Vietnam is a regional rival of China, don't you think Russia was sending a message by jointly developing it with them, selling them major weapons systems, and in general trying to curl up with them?

Come to think of it, Gazprom wasn't the first to do something like this, India also signed an oil exploration agreement and many other strategic and economic agreements late last year, that was clearly aimed at China.

China has done quite a few things to irritate the Russian elites. Instead of playing the role of junior, or at the very least equal, partner, it has tried to play the senior partner in its relationship with Russia. The result has been a fundamental lack of acceptance (note, not a lack of understanding) on the part of Russian elites. That's why Russia is hesitant to put long term joint programs into play, with China.

Indeed, which is why I think Russia's partnership with China is much less solid than it appears to be.

 

[Sampanviking]

As Feanor points out, Russia is obviously concerned not to be suborned into the role of Junior partner and so has to make a show of it from time to time.

This is no way dilutes the strength of their strategic partnership, as the level of co-ordination and harmonisation on all real major issues testifies. Belief otherwise is to be honest, simply wishful thinking from those who desire the reality to be "different".

Bearing in mind just how quickly China drops military relations with the US whenever there is anything it is unhappy about, you may reflect on how the Gazprom story has had no impact whatsoever on the Joint Sino-Russian Naval Exercises just starting in the Yellow Sea.

http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-04/22/content_15107476.htm

 

[outcast]

As Feanor points out, Russia is obviously concerned not to be suborned into the role of Junior partner and so has to make a show of it from time to time.

Except that China has never been a true friend to anyone, except maybe North Korea, even that's a bit shaky. It has a long history of being a force for imperialism in the area, and there is a strong desire to reclaim "lost" territories. Sooner or later, unless Russia is willing to submit to being that junior partner the currently cozy relationship will not last in the long term.

This is no way dilutes the strength of their strategic partnership, as the level of co-ordination and harmonisation on all real major issues testifies. Belief otherwise is to be honest, simply wishful thinking from those who desire the reality to be "different".

Bearing in mind just how quickly China drops military relations with the US whenever there is anything it is unhappy about, you may reflect on how the Gazprom story has had no impact whatsoever on the Joint Sino-Russian Naval Exercises just starting in the Yellow Sea.

*link removed*

That's one way to interpret it, perhaps another is that they (the Chinese) don't want another potential enemy on their border (yet), instead focusing their efforts on India and the South China Sea.

 

[Feanor]

Except that China has never been a true friend to anyone, except maybe North Korea, even that's a bit shaky. It has a long history of being a force for imperialism in the area, and there is a strong desire to reclaim "lost" territories. Sooner or later, unless Russia is willing to submit to being that junior partner the currently cozy relationship will not last in the long term.

The last part is more likely then Russia submitting. Especially if they can maintain economic growth. To be honest I see Russia more likely to join the EU then become allies with China.

 

[PO2GRV]

. . . To be honest I see Russia more likely to join the EU then become allies with China.

do you say that to highlight just how unrealistic the relationship between China and Russia would be or do you mean to say that it is likely that Russia will join the EU?

 

[Feanor]

do you say that to highlight just how unrealistic the relationship between China and Russia would be or do you mean to say that it is likely that Russia will join the EU?

The first one.

 

[Sampanviking]

OK, so you tell me.

How many Security Organisations are China and Russia both members of and how many Russia and Europe?

The exercises this week in the Yellow Sea, led on the Russian side by the Far East Fleet flagship Varyag and supported by three ASW destroyers were involved in substantial joint ASW operations.

I am led to understand that ASW operations are regarded as some of the most critical and most closely guarded operations that a modern navy undertakes and are not shared with others lightly. Is this correct?