'This is not to say that former satellites like the Baltic states don't have a genuine bone to pick with Russia....'
Good to see that at least you acknowledge a bit of history in how Russia deals with its immediate neighbors.
But since those neighbors have always been bit players (ask the Poles) in the great power games, LevinK's comments show another difference - those who were never part of Mother Russia can look at the situation a bit differently than some of the others - ask the Chechens.
Not that anybody much cares about the Chechens anyways, as long as Russia delivers on its energy contracts. As a matter of fact, it seems like an unwritten part of those contracts includes a no-criticism clause in that matter.
I will say, just imagine what the world would have been like if the Bush/Cheney team hadn't been running things - would Putin be so aggressive in defending Russian interests? Or would the various former Soviets republics be so clearly seen as pawns on the great power chess board?
As noted in another thread, I find Putin's KGB past disturbing, but then, Bush I was also a former secret policeman, so it isn't all that unique to see such people use energy as a source of money and power. Or to watch an oligarchic clique come to dominate a country's politics.
There is another level to consider, though. Currently, flawed and hypocritical though it may be, the EU has a certain enlightened self-interest in seeing Russia develop into a reliable customer which doesn't treat its citizens as members of a gulag or as disposable property of the hyper rich. (Turkey more or less belongs to the same category - and to the extent that Turkey has improved its human rights and the lot of the Kurds, it has been mainly due to EU 'encouragement.')
If Russia was to turn to China as its major future customer, the Chinese would care nothing about how the Russian government dealt with its own citizens. And please note, I was talking about the EU - in the case of the U.S. and Japan, neither country seems to have any interest in Russia except to see it keep falling apart, and hope to make a killing on picking up the pieces.
The first act of post-war occupation by Washington was to declare null and void any contracts between the Iraqi government and Russia, China and France. Iraqi oil was to be an American affair, handled by American companies or their close cronies in Britain, the first victory in the high-stakes quest, `where the prize ultimately lies.'
This was precisely what Cheney had alluded to in his 1999 London speech. Get the Middle East oil resources out of independent national hands and into US-controlled hands. The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy. Control of Russian energy reserves, however, was Washington's ultimate `prize.'
De-construction of Russia: The `ultimate prize'
For obvious military and political reasons, Washington could not admit openly that its strategic focus, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, had been the dismemberment or de-construction of Russia, and gaining effective control of its huge oil and gas resources, the `ultimate prize.' The Russian Bear still had formidable military means, however dilapidated, and she still had nuclear teeth.
In the mid-1990's Washington began a deliberate process of bringing one after the other former satellite Soviet state into not just the European Union, but into the Washington-dominated NATO. By 2004 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all had been admitted into NATO, and the Republic of Georgia was being groomed to join.
This surprising spread of NATO, to the alarm of some in western Europe, as well as to Russia, had been part of the strategy advocated by Cheney's friends at the Project for the New American Century, in their `Rebuilding America's Defenses' report and even before.
Already in 1996, PNAC member and Cheney crony, Bruce Jackson, then a top executive with US defense giant, LockheedMartin, was head of the US Committee to Expand NATO, later renamed the US Committee on Nato, a very powerful Washington lobby group.
The US Committee to Expand NATO also included PNAC members Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Kagan. Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, now the US Ambassador to NATO. From 2000 - 2003, she was a foreign policy advisor to Cheney. Hadley, a hardline hawk close to Vice President Cheney, was named by President Bush to replace Condoleezza Rice as his National Security Adviser.
The warhawk Cheney network moved from the PNAC into key posts within the Bush Administration to run NATO and Pentagon policy. Bruce Jackson and others, after successfully lobbying Congress to expand NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, moved to organize the so-called Vilnius Group that lobbied to bring ten more former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia's periphery into NATO. Jackson called this the `Big Bang.'
President Bush repeatedly used the term `New Europe' in statements about NATO enlargement. In a July 5, 2002 speech hailing the leaders of the Vilnius group, Bush declared, `Our nations share a common vision of a new Europe, where free European states are united with each other, and with the United States through cooperation, partnership, and alliance.'
Lockheed Martin's former executive, Bruce Jackson, took credit for bringing the Baltic and other members of the Vilnius Group into NATO. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 1, 2003, Jackson claimed he originated the `Big Bang' concept of NATO enlargement, later adopted by the Vilnius Group of Baltic and Eastern European nations. As Jackson noted, his `Big Bang' briefing `proposed the inclusion of these seven countries in NATO and claimed for this enlargement strategic advantages for NATO and moral (sic) benefits for the democratic community of nations.' On May 19, 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, these propositions were adopted by nine of Europe's new democracies as their own. It became the objectives of the Vilnius Group.' Jackson could also have noted the benefits to US military defense industry, including his old cronies at Lockheed Martin, with the creation of a vast new NATO arms market on the borders to Russia.
But since those neighbors have always been bit players (ask the Poles) in the great power games, LevinK's comments show another difference - those who were never part of Mother Russia can look at the situation a bit differently than some of the others - ask the Chechens.
With the risk of being accused of too pro-Russian, I don't think that Chechens had any valid reasons for their rebellion aside from the greed of their leaders. I am still to see evidence they were being oppressed in some way as a part of the Russian Federation before the conflict started. And I am still to see what would happen in US if for example Texas formed unofficial government that decided to declare independancy so that the same government can make good money of the oil flow from the Gulf.
Historically Russia is no more good or bad than any big country with some empiristical ambitions. What truly matters is how much they are playing by the rules. I would argue that in violating international laws, interfering with internal affairs or invading sovereign countries they stand far behind US (if comparable at all), not to mention the past performance of Germany or say France on those.
No, that is not too pro-Russian. My point was more in how the Russians have treated the people living there, not in whether what they did was correct or somehow justified. And the Chechens not only have a long history of being unhappy with Soviet rule, at least, they seem to have a reputation among Russians of being criminals - whether this is deserved or not may be hard to judge from the outside. Many Americans think black males between roughly 15 and 25 years old are likely to be gang members, for example, because that is how such Americans are often portrayed in the media, and because a number of gangs have a membership which corresponds to that demographic - but obviously, most black males between 15 and 25 are not gang members.
Every state will defend its own interests and territory, and there is no question Russia drew the line at having its own traditional borders being changed.
The EU follows its own interests, and commenting about what happens inside Russia territory is considered an internal matter, better left to the Russians to handle - while politely ignoring what that means. If energy is delivered as per contract, so much the better.
I do think that an Estonian has a very different opinion of Russia compared to a Czech or a Pole, and that a number of non-Russians within Russia's territory feel differently yet again, regardless of the merits of their claims, since Russia expanded its territory through force, and unlike in the U.S., which expanded into an 'empty' continent, the conquered people already there were pretty much left alive after the Russians took over. Then add what Stalin did, and you get a mixture which doesn't fit well into Western frameworks at all.
My opinions don't fit well in this debate, most likely - neither the West nor the Russians are on the side of the angels, as they both want to exploit what they have in service of a system that mainly represents the interests of the rich and powerful, though Western Europe is certainly a more comfortable place to live for most of its citizens. This is the real world, not what Hollywood likes to portay as reality.
Well my country has been 500 years under Turkish rule, which is commonly refered in our history as "slavery", because of the grossly limited rights our nation had. But this does not disturb our relations with Turkey now, nor should it be any reason to do so IMO.
In a sane world past transgression, especially old ones should not be a reason for bad relations or hostility between countries. Which makes Europe not the most sane place on Earth, I'm afraid. Baltic countries + Poland have some historical reasons for their anti-russian stanza, but IMO this is just on the surface nowadays. Currently it is mostly fueled by the new Big Brother's influence - EU and USA need them as an outpost against Russia, which must stand still and be happy with its role of resource supplier. All the Chechnya and human rights talk is just another coin in this game - have you heard for example Putin criticizing UK's policy in Ireland or Spain's in Southern Basque?
The how-the-Russia-treats-its-own-citizens talk is another one of those hypocritical double talks used in the west in this game, which displays just the surface of the problem. The truth is that the West proactively participated in the impoverishing of Russia and dismantling of the Russian state in the 90s. It is also in/directly responsible for creating the oligarchy, which is already an existing factor in Russia. How impoverished, criminalized and robbed out country could maintain the western standards of "human rights" is an absolute enigma for me.
In the end it would be stupid to say that I am sympatetic to the Russia as a country, but I'm definately sympatetic to the current Russian government. Putin is doing just the right thing for them, restoring its sovereignity, limiting the influence of the oligarchs (yes, he did that! why everyone avoids to call Khudochovsky an oligarch, what he was?) and creating the framework for a stable and prosperous Russia. Which is also in the long-term EU and US interest if they were only able to look past securing their next dose. BTW Germany is faring quite well with maintaining a balanced policy towards Russia and only your anti-nuclear energy self-delusion is stopping me from nominating it for a most pragmatic post-PO nation.
I am not German, and I don't find Germany's anti-nuclear stance so completely wrong - what we need and what we want needs to be in much better balance, and at least most people in Germany seem to agree with this.
Ironically, the power company EnBW wants to extend the operating life of one its older nuclear plants, and part of the reason was the company's concern for the environment. As quickly pointed out, EnBW is building coal plants, so concern for the environment seems to be much lower on the company's priorities than money. Germans tend to favor conservation and efficiency, which somehow never seems to fit well into a system where more energy used means more profit for the energy companies - and more contributions to various politicians, who then ensure their campaign contributions by ensuring energy companies continue to profit from their current business model.
Leaving aside the practical concerns, I would be thrilled if essentially all of the currently operating, cooling fluid dependent reactors were shut down - what an incredibly stupid design concept, in my eyes. At least Germany plans this over the long term, and that social consensus remains in force, it seems. If EnBW had applied to extend the life of its most modern facilities, they may have had a better political chance - but the profit margin would have been much lower. And that is yet another proof of my real problem with a profit oriented system and reactors which fail horribly if not maintained at a high and expensive standard of engineering, servicing, training, redundancy, and testing - which a company finds a burden to its bottom line.
I am not anti-nuclear against safe designs, though the waste problem is not exactly solved.
Interesting exchange of views - though as a final note, I think Putin is more or less replacing oligarchs, not an oligarchic system, but it is true that the current heads of the system have a more consistent view of Russia's needs, as compared to the simple need to get as rich as possible, regardless of any other consideration.
Where would we be now if we hadn't admitted the Republic of Texas into the Union in 1845? Texas was an independent nation for 9 years before statehood. Since 2 of the last 3 presidents we've had were residents of Texas we might never had any involvement in Iraq. President Dukakis might not have bother to rescue the dictator of Kuwait from the dictator of Iraq since his family didn't have any oil exploration contracts with Kuwait. Consequently President Gore and Vice President Edwards wouldn't own a stake in Halliburton and we would be further along the road to a renewable energy economy now.
If Texas were to ceceed from the Union again like it did in 1861 I'd say let it go.
I said they were residents of Texas and registered voters there. The electoral votes of Texas were critical to their elections.
Correction: Gore and Edwards do not have a stake in Halliburton and their sweetheart deals. Sum dae I gotta lern two prufreed.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
-->
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
GAIA Host Collective
Good to see that at least you acknowledge a bit of history in how Russia deals with its immediate neighbors.
But since those neighbors have always been bit players (ask the Poles) in the great power games, LevinK's comments show another difference - those who were never part of Mother Russia can look at the situation a bit differently than some of the others - ask the Chechens.
Not that anybody much cares about the Chechens anyways, as long as Russia delivers on its energy contracts. As a matter of fact, it seems like an unwritten part of those contracts includes a no-criticism clause in that matter.
I will say, just imagine what the world would have been like if the Bush/Cheney team hadn't been running things - would Putin be so aggressive in defending Russian interests? Or would the various former Soviets republics be so clearly seen as pawns on the great power chess board?
As noted in another thread, I find Putin's KGB past disturbing, but then, Bush I was also a former secret policeman, so it isn't all that unique to see such people use energy as a source of money and power. Or to watch an oligarchic clique come to dominate a country's politics.
There is another level to consider, though. Currently, flawed and hypocritical though it may be, the EU has a certain enlightened self-interest in seeing Russia develop into a reliable customer which doesn't treat its citizens as members of a gulag or as disposable property of the hyper rich. (Turkey more or less belongs to the same category - and to the extent that Turkey has improved its human rights and the lot of the Kurds, it has been mainly due to EU 'encouragement.')
If Russia was to turn to China as its major future customer, the Chinese would care nothing about how the Russian government dealt with its own citizens. And please note, I was talking about the EU - in the case of the U.S. and Japan, neither country seems to have any interest in Russia except to see it keep falling apart, and hope to make a killing on picking up the pieces.
Excerpt from F. Wiliam Engdahl, Oct 7 2006:
The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically
The first act of post-war occupation by Washington was to declare null and void any contracts between the Iraqi government and Russia, China and France. Iraqi oil was to be an American affair, handled by American companies or their close cronies in Britain, the first victory in the high-stakes quest, `where the prize ultimately lies.'
This was precisely what Cheney had alluded to in his 1999 London speech. Get the Middle East oil resources out of independent national hands and into US-controlled hands. The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy. Control of Russian energy reserves, however, was Washington's ultimate `prize.'
De-construction of Russia: The `ultimate prize'
For obvious military and political reasons, Washington could not admit openly that its strategic focus, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, had been the dismemberment or de-construction of Russia, and gaining effective control of its huge oil and gas resources, the `ultimate prize.' The Russian Bear still had formidable military means, however dilapidated, and she still had nuclear teeth.
In the mid-1990's Washington began a deliberate process of bringing one after the other former satellite Soviet state into not just the European Union, but into the Washington-dominated NATO. By 2004 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all had been admitted into NATO, and the Republic of Georgia was being groomed to join.
This surprising spread of NATO, to the alarm of some in western Europe, as well as to Russia, had been part of the strategy advocated by Cheney's friends at the Project for the New American Century, in their `Rebuilding America's Defenses' report and even before.
Already in 1996, PNAC member and Cheney crony, Bruce Jackson, then a top executive with US defense giant, LockheedMartin, was head of the US Committee to Expand NATO, later renamed the US Committee on Nato, a very powerful Washington lobby group.
The US Committee to Expand NATO also included PNAC members Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Kagan. Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, now the US Ambassador to NATO. From 2000 - 2003, she was a foreign policy advisor to Cheney. Hadley, a hardline hawk close to Vice President Cheney, was named by President Bush to replace Condoleezza Rice as his National Security Adviser.
The warhawk Cheney network moved from the PNAC into key posts within the Bush Administration to run NATO and Pentagon policy. Bruce Jackson and others, after successfully lobbying Congress to expand NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, moved to organize the so-called Vilnius Group that lobbied to bring ten more former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia's periphery into NATO. Jackson called this the `Big Bang.'
President Bush repeatedly used the term `New Europe' in statements about NATO enlargement. In a July 5, 2002 speech hailing the leaders of the Vilnius group, Bush declared, `Our nations share a common vision of a new Europe, where free European states are united with each other, and with the United States through cooperation, partnership, and alliance.'
Lockheed Martin's former executive, Bruce Jackson, took credit for bringing the Baltic and other members of the Vilnius Group into NATO. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 1, 2003, Jackson claimed he originated the `Big Bang' concept of NATO enlargement, later adopted by the Vilnius Group of Baltic and Eastern European nations. As Jackson noted, his `Big Bang' briefing `proposed the inclusion of these seven countries in NATO and claimed for this enlargement strategic advantages for NATO and moral (sic) benefits for the democratic community of nations.' On May 19, 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, these propositions were adopted by nine of Europe's new democracies as their own. It became the objectives of the Vilnius Group.' Jackson could also have noted the benefits to US military defense industry, including his old cronies at Lockheed Martin, with the creation of a vast new NATO arms market on the borders to Russia.
With the risk of being accused of too pro-Russian, I don't think that Chechens had any valid reasons for their rebellion aside from the greed of their leaders. I am still to see evidence they were being oppressed in some way as a part of the Russian Federation before the conflict started. And I am still to see what would happen in US if for example Texas formed unofficial government that decided to declare independancy so that the same government can make good money of the oil flow from the Gulf.
Historically Russia is no more good or bad than any big country with some empiristical ambitions. What truly matters is how much they are playing by the rules. I would argue that in violating international laws, interfering with internal affairs or invading sovereign countries they stand far behind US (if comparable at all), not to mention the past performance of Germany or say France on those.
Every state will defend its own interests and territory, and there is no question Russia drew the line at having its own traditional borders being changed.
The EU follows its own interests, and commenting about what happens inside Russia territory is considered an internal matter, better left to the Russians to handle - while politely ignoring what that means. If energy is delivered as per contract, so much the better.
I do think that an Estonian has a very different opinion of Russia compared to a Czech or a Pole, and that a number of non-Russians within Russia's territory feel differently yet again, regardless of the merits of their claims, since Russia expanded its territory through force, and unlike in the U.S., which expanded into an 'empty' continent, the conquered people already there were pretty much left alive after the Russians took over. Then add what Stalin did, and you get a mixture which doesn't fit well into Western frameworks at all.
My opinions don't fit well in this debate, most likely - neither the West nor the Russians are on the side of the angels, as they both want to exploit what they have in service of a system that mainly represents the interests of the rich and powerful, though Western Europe is certainly a more comfortable place to live for most of its citizens. This is the real world, not what Hollywood likes to portay as reality.
In a sane world past transgression, especially old ones should not be a reason for bad relations or hostility between countries. Which makes Europe not the most sane place on Earth, I'm afraid. Baltic countries + Poland have some historical reasons for their anti-russian stanza, but IMO this is just on the surface nowadays. Currently it is mostly fueled by the new Big Brother's influence - EU and USA need them as an outpost against Russia, which must stand still and be happy with its role of resource supplier. All the Chechnya and human rights talk is just another coin in this game - have you heard for example Putin criticizing UK's policy in Ireland or Spain's in Southern Basque?
The how-the-Russia-treats-its-own-citizens talk is another one of those hypocritical double talks used in the west in this game, which displays just the surface of the problem. The truth is that the West proactively participated in the impoverishing of Russia and dismantling of the Russian state in the 90s. It is also in/directly responsible for creating the oligarchy, which is already an existing factor in Russia. How impoverished, criminalized and robbed out country could maintain the western standards of "human rights" is an absolute enigma for me.
In the end it would be stupid to say that I am sympatetic to the Russia as a country, but I'm definately sympatetic to the current Russian government. Putin is doing just the right thing for them, restoring its sovereignity, limiting the influence of the oligarchs (yes, he did that! why everyone avoids to call Khudochovsky an oligarch, what he was?) and creating the framework for a stable and prosperous Russia. Which is also in the long-term EU and US interest if they were only able to look past securing their next dose. BTW Germany is faring quite well with maintaining a balanced policy towards Russia and only your anti-nuclear energy self-delusion is stopping me from nominating it for a most pragmatic post-PO nation.
Ironically, the power company EnBW wants to extend the operating life of one its older nuclear plants, and part of the reason was the company's concern for the environment. As quickly pointed out, EnBW is building coal plants, so concern for the environment seems to be much lower on the company's priorities than money. Germans tend to favor conservation and efficiency, which somehow never seems to fit well into a system where more energy used means more profit for the energy companies - and more contributions to various politicians, who then ensure their campaign contributions by ensuring energy companies continue to profit from their current business model.
Leaving aside the practical concerns, I would be thrilled if essentially all of the currently operating, cooling fluid dependent reactors were shut down - what an incredibly stupid design concept, in my eyes. At least Germany plans this over the long term, and that social consensus remains in force, it seems. If EnBW had applied to extend the life of its most modern facilities, they may have had a better political chance - but the profit margin would have been much lower. And that is yet another proof of my real problem with a profit oriented system and reactors which fail horribly if not maintained at a high and expensive standard of engineering, servicing, training, redundancy, and testing - which a company finds a burden to its bottom line.
I am not anti-nuclear against safe designs, though the waste problem is not exactly solved.
Interesting exchange of views - though as a final note, I think Putin is more or less replacing oligarchs, not an oligarchic system, but it is true that the current heads of the system have a more consistent view of Russia's needs, as compared to the simple need to get as rich as possible, regardless of any other consideration.
If Texas were to ceceed from the Union again like it did in 1861 I'd say let it go.
The whole Texan thing is just an act.
W is no more a Texan than Jeb is a Floridian.
Correction: Gore and Edwards do not have a stake in Halliburton and their sweetheart deals. Sum dae I gotta lern two prufreed.