<DrumBeat: December 20, 2006The Oil DrumAngola Joins OPEC>
<DrumBeat: December 20, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: December 22, 2006>

109 comments on DrumBeat: December 21, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on December 21, 2006 - 2:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on December 21, 2006 - 4:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on December 21, 2006 - 4:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on December 21, 2006 - 5:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on December 22, 2006 - 1:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on December 22, 2006 - 8:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Bushes aren't Texans. They are New England Blue Blood.

The whole Texan thing is just an act.

W is no more a Texan than Jeb is a Floridian.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on December 23, 2006 - 1:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
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.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.