Russia-Europe Energy Thread

Posts split From another thread. /GD

FluffyThoughts said:

Please avoid any Western news-agencies. GWB does not see the world your way. But hay...! :

Any comment on the Ukraine's SAM offer to we westerners...?

Russia has won the battle against the Georgians: However they have lost the war. Peace is about compromise: hearts-and-minds...!

Click to expand...

Russia has won both the battle and War.
West economic weakness and dependence does allow it to do anything of practical in nature. All is for public consumption. and as Russia goes richer it will drive further wedge among Western countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503097.html
Bush and Rice initially focused on getting a tough declaration from the Group of Seven industrial democracies condemning Russia. But the initial resistance Rice encountered in a conference call with other G-7 foreign ministers shows how hard Bush -- and his successor -- will have to work to rebuild alliance unity on the Kremlin

Click to expand...

Now this very desperate. The flip side is Russia already has troops in north of afghanistan and if suddenly it start supporting Tajik/Uzbke invastion of Afghanistan to detach northern/Western part. and forcing NATO to go to South in taliban terrotery will be humiliating defeat for the alliance at hands of irregulars. Russia is not Soviet Union. it has plenty of hard currency to buy friends and foe and change the map of the region. So old tactics wont work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081303365.html
President Bush could cash in on his close personal relationship with Putin by sending him a copy of the highly entertaining (and highly fictionalized) film "Charlie Wilson's War" to remind Vlad of our capacity to make Russia bleed. Putin would need no reminders of the Georgians' capacity and long history of doing likewise to invaders

Click to expand...

Just some comments on methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

...and one on analogies to risk diversification strategies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

Grand Danois said:

Just some comments on methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

...and one on analogies to risk diversification strategies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

Click to expand...

All these strategies have already failed as there is no hope of there success in future as Russians have spent entire decade to develop economic system that only benefit them and completely bought of Western CEO. We can start entire thread about it. We have to wait when they are going to spend $300B in on state armament that will built weopon systems that are more effective than anything else out there.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3568763,00.html
Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has accused Georgia of provoking the recent hostilities with Russia by sending troops into South Ossetia and described President Mikheil Saakashvili as a "gambler."

In an interview with German newsmagazine Der Spiegel that was published Saturday, Aug. 16, Schroeder said that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was "the moment that initiated the current hostilities."

He declined to comment on whether Russia's response was disproportionate, saying that military conflicts developed their own dynamic.

Schroeder's successor, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Friday described the Russian reaction as "disproportionate in some aspects."

Schroeder said the West had make "serious errors" in its policy toward Russia, and Western views of Russia did not correspond with the reality there

Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that Germany and France didn't wan't Georgia into NATo because they considered Sakaashvili a loose cannon, and not because of Russian strength/pressure?

You, of course, prefer the latter explanation, because that is how you wish it is.

Grand Danois said:

Did it ever occur to you that Germany and France didn't wan't Georgia into NATo because they considered Sakaashvili a loose cannon, and not because of Russian strength/pressure?

You, of course, prefer the latter explanation, because that is how you wish it is.

Click to expand...

Both. In reality, it is not about Russian pressure. In reality, it is about deep misunderstanding between US and many NATO members. And these NATO members dont want yet more unstable US puppets into NATO. They have enough problems with Poland, Baltic states and some other new members.

This situation slowly, but surely lead to obvious outcome - EU wide security forces/army, which will replace NATO.

Most EU countries feel US have much too much power within NATO. They dont feel what after USSR fall they need US troops for protection, and dont always obliged to bow US wishes. Now, with Iraq (and recently Georgia) we just see tip of iceberg relating to these problems.

And let's not forget that the Eastern expansion of NATO isn't necessarily always seen completely positive in Europe.

Especially states that have internal conflicts (like Georgia, but to a limited extent still also Ukraine, and definitely Moldova for example) have the problem that Western Europe now has some - bad - example in the accession of another such nation (Cyprus) to the EU.

Grand Danois said:

Did it ever occur to you that Germany and France didn't wan't Georgia into NATo because they considered Sakaashvili a loose cannon, and not because of Russian strength/pressure?

You, of course, prefer the latter explanation, because that is how you wish it is.

Click to expand...

I guess u havent read the whole interview. Schroeder has already given a choice as he already knows that Bankrupt economic system of West do not allow it to stand up Russia.

He urged the European Union to press ahead with plans to forge a "strategic partnership" pact with Moscow, saying Europe risked losing influence and pushing Russia towards China if it did not work with the Kremlin

Click to expand...

Whether Georgia enters or not whether Sakaashvili is president or not is irrelevant to the whole context
This thing is about Asia rise. When u have 3B people rising incomes matched with Russian resources/Scientific power/arms and transport routes. ur creating a dangerous mix. I am not even going into Middleast and other parts of the world. West cannot afford Russia on other side since West is completely in debt with falling industrial levels/ outsourcing which is threat to interest rates because of inflation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121859604208935765.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Russian Steel Firm to Buy John Maneely
By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS
August 13, 2008; Page B2
In yet another sign of Russia's growing interest in the U.S. steel market, Russian steelmaker Novolipetsk Steel reached a definitive agreement to acquire John Maneely Co., the largest independent tubular-steel manufacturer in the U.S., for $3.53 billion.

Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWs8B_j9Hd9E&refer=home

GM Not Seeing Signs of U.S. Recovery, Wagoner Says
The automaker is growing faster than competitors in markets such as Russia and holds a dominant position in most of the fastest- growing regions, he said

Click to expand...

Russian Knows that reality very well now. Importance of G8 is entirely due to Russia. so Bush can huff and puff all day. Reality is quite different.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080815/116075172.html

Ousting Russia from the G8 looks like a tough measure, but it is not really. The G8 long ago lost its original essence, and has turned into little more than an expensive talking shop. If it is to regain its relevance its format must be changed. It is strange that Canada is a member of this club, but such huge economies as China, India, or Brazil are not. Nor does it include a single African nation. It has been clear since the end of the past century that this is inadequate. If Russia leaves this club, it will simply cease to exist.

Click to expand...

Grand Danois said:

Did it ever occur to you that Germany and France didn't wan't Georgia into NATo because they considered Sakaashvili a loose cannon, and not because of Russian strength/pressure?

You, of course, prefer the latter explanation, because that is how you wish it is.

Click to expand...

Everybody knew he was an over-aggressive idiot but that wasn't even their biggest or only obstacle to NATO membership.

NATO doesn't allow countries with territorial disputes to gain membership. To find out why, look at what just happened in Georgia. How was NATO supposed to deal with something like that?

Roberto, you can't quote an op-ed from a pro-Kremlin Russian magazine to prove your point.

kato said:

And let's not forget that the Eastern expansion of NATO isn't necessarily always seen completely positive in Europe.

Especially states that have internal conflicts (like Georgia, but to a limited extent still also Ukraine, and definitely Moldova for example) have the problem that Western Europe now has some - bad - example in the accession of another such nation (Cyprus) to the EU.

Click to expand...

It was not a good idea to accept Cyrpus. Not without having the dispute solved first.

Chrom said:

Both. In reality, it is not about Russian pressure. In reality, it is about deep misunderstanding between US and many NATO members. And these NATO members dont want yet more unstable US puppets into NATO. They have enough problems with Poland, Baltic states and some other new members.

This situation slowly, but surely lead to obvious outcome - EU wide security forces/army, which will replace NATO.

Most EU countries feel US have much too much power within NATO. They dont feel what after USSR fall they need US troops for protection, and dont always obliged to bow US wishes. Now, with Iraq (and recently Georgia) we just see tip of iceberg relating to these problems.

Click to expand...

I'd rather say that France and Germany consider the EU-Russian relationship to be symbiotic, which is why they do not want it to be fooled with.

The Poles and Balts have had some surreal (but minor) issues with the Russians. The Poles' behaviour inside EU have been awkard to begin with, but they learning it is a two-way street.

But it's wrong of the Americans to think NATO is a direct extension of US foreign policy. This is a specialty of the Bush admin. Will be interesting to see where the next admin will take it.

Roberto, you are peppering this site with disconnected material. It is the behaviour of a troll.

eaf-f16 said:

Everybody knew he was an over-aggressive idiot but that wasn't even their biggest or only obstacle to NATO membership.

NATO doesn't allow countries with territorial disputes to gain membership. To find out why, look at what just happened in Georgia. How was NATO supposed to deal with something like that?

Click to expand...

Yes, and Georgia in particular was no place to take a confrontation like that if it had to be.

Grand Danois said:

Roberto, you are peppering this site with disconnected material. It is the behaviour of a troll.

Click to expand...

I have already mentioned that we can start some thread on that issue. As u cannot easily separate economic issues from Military. It is the economic issues that cause various states to behave in particular way for given conflict.

Grand Danois said:

I'd rather say that France and Germany consider the EU-Russian relationship to be symbiotic, which is why they do not want it to be fooled with.

The Poles and Balts have had some surreal (but minor) issues with the Russians. The Poles' behaviour inside EU have been awkard to begin with, but they learning it is a two-way street.

But it's wrong of the Americans to think NATO is a direct extension of US foreign policy. This is a specialty of the Bush admin. Will be interesting to see where the next admin will take it.

Click to expand...

Very good point. Already reading the Herald Tribune on Thursday one could see that Obama was trying to act neutral (out of determined thinking or out of ignorance - depending on what political side you are on I guess...) while McCain was strongly protesting. In such testing times it is clear the US needs a firm and mature leadership to leverage the US' strength while obvious using a lot of moderation.

cheers

roberto said:

I guess u havent read the whole interview. Schroeder has already given a choice as he already knows that Bankrupt economic system of West do not allow it to stand up Russia.

Click to expand...

Umm, the full interview is only in the print issue of Spiegel. Which will be released next Monday.

Topmaul said:

the western media automatically sided with the aggressors (Georgia).

Click to expand...

Nah, that really depends on the country. German media has been pretty critical of Georgia, even extremely conservative (pro-US) media such as FAZ and the Springer press - which has actually (positively) quoted Shevardnaze, Putin and Gorbachev in blaming Georgia in full, and has brought out (relatively pro-Russian) analysts such as Scholl-Latour on the war.

kato said:

Umm, the full interview is only in the print issue of Spiegel. Which will be released next Monday.


Nah, that really depends on the country. German media has been pretty critical of Georgia, even extremely conservative (pro-US) media such as FAZ and the Springer press - which has actually (positively) quoted Shevardnaze, Putin and Gorbachev in blaming Georgia in full, and has brought out (relatively pro-Russian) analysts such as Scholl-Latour on the war.

Click to expand...

Yes, German medians were surprisingly neutral, presenting both sides view and critical to both. This, however paradoxical, proves one thing:

There is no independent medias in the world ;( Each of them serve national elite interests. German interest right now require to be friendly with Russia - and they media behavior reflect that. Other countries same case - extremely unfriendly and biased in US, friendly and somewhat biased toward Russia in say China.

FluffyThoughts said:

Some people may have misread my geo-political point that Russia may have lost the war. Here is a comment from this week's The Economist:

The change of scene should not, in retrospect, be surprising. Unlike Abkhazia, which is separated from the rest of Georgia by a buffer zone, South Ossetia is a tiny patchwork of villages—Georgian and South Ossetian—which was much easier to drag into a war. It is headed by a thuggish former Soviet official, Eduard Kokoity, and run by the Russian security services. It lives off smuggling and Russian money. As Yulia Latynina, a Russian journalist, puts it, “South Ossetia is a joint venture between KGB generals and an Ossetian gangster, who jointly utilise the money disbursed by Moscow for fighting with Georgia.”

Source: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920992

Please read the full document. The diversity of sources used - many quoted - could be one of the more intriguing analysis [sp?] of the current conflict. This paper also predicted the collapse of the Warsaw Pact many years before anyone else...!

Click to expand...

u dont need Economist to predict collapse of communism. Chinese left it in 1970s. Soviets did it in late 80s. Atleast these two were honest that there economic system is not working. Cut in military spending for research was since early 80s. Read Oleg Damchenko President of IrKut & Chief Designer of Yak at www.russiatoday.ru under spot light program.
Now the problem is West and its debt/ economic dependency that is cause of concern. Just switiching by OPEC of reserve currency of Oil will change the world upside down. and this thing is happening at accelerated pace by depegging. St Petersburg Oil exchange has just started. Economist should be concentrated on these issues instead of wasting time on Georgia.

You approach national economics as if was it household economy. That's where you go wrong. Russia only provide a fraction of energy consumption of the West (or Europe).

Grand Danois said:

You approach national economics as if was it household economy. That's where you go wrong. Russia only provide a fraction of energy consumption of the West (or Europe).

Click to expand...

It certainly is not fractional. 50% of EU gas imports is from Russia in 2008. and Russia has cooperative agreements with libya/Algeria. So there EU will have to deal with Russian companies. And dont forget Nuclear fuel cycle for EU/US reactors. Now imagine if China succeeds in its 100 Nuclear reactor goal. or Russia builds its own 30 new reactors. It will create severv pressure on thos EU markets. sooner or later that time is coming when Russia issue Either with us or against us ultimatum to EU. This thing is going the same way as China-Taiwan when most of World abandon Taiwan due to China economic power. Russia is exactly copying that strategy but on much grander scale.

http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=80428
Russia is the basic supplier of raw materials for the Ukrainian atomic power stations. It is remarkable that Ukraine is dependant on Russia in the nuclear sector, much more than in the hydrocarbons. Russia delivers 100 percent of the fuel for Ukrainian atomic power stations, delivered by Russian corporation TVEL

Click to expand...

roberto said:

It certainly is not fractional. 50% of EU gas imports is from Russia in 2008. and Russia has cooperative agreements with libya/Algeria. So there EU will have to deal with Russian companies. And dont forget Nuclear fuel cycle for EU/US reactors. Now imagine if China succeeds in its 100 Nuclear reactor goal. or Russia builds its own 30 new reactors. It will create severv pressure on thos EU markets. sooner or later that time is coming when Russia issue Either with us or against us ultimatum to EU. This thing is going the same way as China-Taiwan when most of World abandon Taiwan due to China economic power. Russia is exactly copying that strategy but on much grander scale.

Click to expand...

But 27% of gas consumption - the figure that matters. And it is only in the gas sector the fraction is that high.

The rest is conjecture, based on selective material and limited knowledge of the mechanism of the real world. Particular when it comes to nuclear fuels - your prev contribution on that subject wouldn't even stand a superficial review.