 | DrumBeat: December 18, 2007 | The Oil Drum | New SEC Concept Floated to Change Way E&P Companies Book Reserves |  |
84 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - December 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
84 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - December 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
So Yeltsin/Gorbi were apparatchiks of sorts, Putin was a KGB man with a university thesis on controlling the globe strategically using oil and gas, which he has pretty much accomplished as far as possible and now Medvedev is an oil man. This is a logical transition with Putin as chief advisor till Medvedev gets up to snuff.
You post makes no sense at all. Russia hardly controls the world. You can compare number of military bases outside of the country (I think Russia might have 3 or 4). On this comparison Russia probably has less then 1% of US military bases. Same with oil or gas. Russia produces relatively small piece of overall pie as far as oil (or total energy) goes, far less then majority that would be required for "controlling the globe". I would argue that again as an example US controls far more of oil resources then Russia does.
Maybe you meant to say that "evil Putin figured a way to keep Russia independent"?
True! The West likes Gorbatchev, who dismantled the USSR.
They liked Yeltsin, who ruined the economy.
But now they hate Putin, because ... because they don't like to see a strong Russia.
Putin is not perfect, but this is probably the FIRST Russian leader, after so long, that, after all, really did something positive for his country. That's why people in Russia love him.
G.W.B. and his neo-cons are simply pathetic. They want to teach Putin democracy and how to rule - Putin has 75% support in his country, while fool Bush has less than 25% in the USA.
Proof to me that Russia isn't doing "democracy" the "American" way.
Hi,
I know it is fun to bash the US, but Putin is another of a long line of Russian/Soviet thugs who kill dissidents, most recently Alexander Litvinko.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
There is a good reason that the former Eastern block/Soviet countries want to join NATO. They escaped an evil empire that murdered on an inconceivable scale.
Dave
Whereas our thugs now just torture folks from other countries?
Just because Russia may be bad, doesn't mean we're much better. So we choose to be glad we're stuck in the lesser of two evils, with our version presently headed much down the path theirs was then.
I was in East Berlin in about 1982 once, only for a day so it's not like I got more than a "feel" for it. Indeed, their system seemed to produce a lot of people who hated the occupying Russian forces and were not the happiest. Not everybody in the west loved American forces stationed there either. Examples on both sides that I observed acted like smug conquerors much of the time.
The one real advantage I thought the eastern version had then was virtually no advertising, except for political propaganda and there really wasn't as much of that as there was Sony propaganda on the other side. It was the only time I ever experienced a city without a lot of billboards and branding messages.
Both systems were/are based on a form of materialism that, extended out, essentially ends up with the planet exploited, and probably dead. One might have taken a lot longer, but it's a half dozen of one, half dozen of another.
I may not have a good answer for what would work better, but I don't believe what we're doing now is particularly good or likely to be long-lived.
We're slaves to work identities. They pretended to work for the good of the state.
Medvedev as an oil man will concetrate hopefully on renewing infrastructure in the industry and investing in new developments. Putin can do the rest of the work as Prime Minister. Russian internal stability with rule of law, business development, prosperity and the stability of Russian oil and gas production is critical of peace in The West.
I thought the other day that Putin was in a quandary after his party won the elections. He was so popular that he could easily rule his whole life and change the constitution. However the moment he made that move his legitimacy, the whole basis of his popularity wouldhave been withdrawn. As long as he is seen as legitimate and democratic, playing by the rules, Mr. Clean in a sea of corrupt politicans, protecting the country, his actions will be legitimized. The moment he tries to cash out and become "Dictator for Life" his legitimacy is out the window. So he had to take a lesser job with likely almost the same power as before. His popularity and influence come from his personal integrity as much as from his office. We see what Bush has done with the title of President and this statement no longer seems completely naive.
He is probably the most competent and normal leader of Russia since Peter the Great. There have been so many idiots and weaklings and mad men along the way.
We should all stop looking at Russia all from ideological slant or in terms of our recent relationship to Russia. We need a stable partnership with a happy, prosperous country and these leaders are the best you can ever expect to get.
Putin's university thesis of leveraging oil and gas for geostrategic influence seems a logical basis for foregin policy as it is really all they have at the moment. Total global domnination in the US sense would be completely unreasonable as a goal. This has only brought the US to the verge of collapse similar to the situation the Soviet Union had by supporting East Bloc and 3rd world countries with weapons and economic subsidies whiole maintaining a huge weapons programs. Maybe we could compare the current Russian and US situation to the Byzantine and Western Roman empires. In the East they scaled back in time and concentrated on the basics and survived nicely for 1000 years more while in the West they jsut kept up appearances and tried to maintain a massive empire which guaranteed collpase. Maybe USA is like Rome forcing itself into collapse by ignoring reality while Russia will remain modest and self contained maintain stability well into the future.
75% approval rating for Putin? what figures are you thinking of?
the ones the KGB fixed, or the ones the Russian Mob fixed?
maybe the ones Gazprom took.
those perhaps?
I honestly doubt Putin has an approval rating that high, maybe 60% but 75? about as likely as finding oil under Washington DC.
Russia has a lot of nukes and oil. But not much else.
75% still is nowhere close to Saddam Hussein. He had 99% according to official poll, so Putin has a ways to go. He's on the right track though.
what kind of job is the us doing "controlling" oil in a country like say.....................iraq ? and at what cost ?