Well, yeah I guess so.

Great strategic thinking; just "thousands of little tactical errors" as somebody said.

I've been mulling over a little epiphany I had the other day (now that I'm re-interpreting modern history in light of the oil peak).

I was struck by the odd symmetry between the USA and Russia :

  • USA : oil men take over the government, by fair means or foul
  • Russia : government takes over the oil men, by fair means or foul

Khodorovsky is rotting in jail, and what was his crime? Standing against Putin? No, trying to internationalize Russia's oil industry (in particular, with US partners).

Putin has been strikingly more successful than Bush in his oil strategy : he's created a powerful geopolitical tool, which a "free market" would have taken out of his hands.

Putin has been more "successful" because his goals are obviously different. He is attempting to increase the economic and geopolitical strength of Russia. BCR are like CEOs with lots of stock options-if what they do results in long-term strength for the company it is a side effect not the main intention. BCR have been extremely successful at making money for themselves and their friends. Isn't this what American success is all about?  
Good logical explanation of reasons behind Putin actions:
http://geostrategymap.com/freepdfs/Guest_May07_06.pdf
I don't actually think oil men have taken over the US government. We might all be at least somewhat better off if they had.
Oil is merely one of several businesses Bush junior dabbled in, with conspicuous lack of success.
Cheney has no deep roots in oil.
No-one says pharmaceutical executives have taken over, though that was Rumsfeld's job.
Amen to that.
If the Pres was T B Pickens & vice was Simmons - we would be well on the way to trying to fix this mess.