Here's a not so bad piece from Taipan Publishing. Somewhat long, but a good read. ...Plus, it's time for us to start a new thread anyway:-)

............ The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards. A deadly miscommunication arises from this asymmetry. The Russians cannot believe that the Americans are as stupid as they look, and conclude that Washington wants to destroy them.......... 

___________

27 AUG 2008

The New Energy Cold War, Part III: The Warsaw-Tehran Connection Written by Justice Litle, Editorial Director, Taipan Publishing Group

In this final look at the "New Energy Cold War," we examine what's ultimately at stake for Russia and the West. “We have crossed the Rubicon.” - Donald Tusk, Polish Prime Minister In Part I of this series, we looked at the South Ossetia conflict “through Russian eyes.” In Part II, you had plenty to say about the “Cuban missile crisis in reverse.” Now, in Part III, we will look at the longer-term implications for oil and gas... and listen for the distant drumbeats of war. A Deep Miscalculation The attitude of the West -- all the more enforced by Western politicians and Western media -- is that “Russia needs to be shown who is boss.” The whole affair is seen as a sort of game... a chance for the West to thump its chest, trumpet its ideals and demonstrate moral superiority (in word if not in deed). In reading the various Western op-eds, two assertions come to the fore over and over again. First, that “Russia is dangerous.” Second, that “Russia is weak.” (The WSJ even ran a recent piece titled, “Russia is dangerous but weak.”) Both these assertions are true. The problem is, the pundits have the situation backwards. They recognize that Russia is dangerous, but they calculate that, because Russia is also “weak,” that lessens the danger somehow. The fact that Russia is weak, these pundits tell us, means that the West can “show them who’s boss” without much effort. And, of course, politicians are happy to fan the flames. It’s the assumption that Russia is weak that allows John McCain to crow, “We are all Georgians” without really thinking about what he is saying. It’s the assumption that Russia is vulnerable -- too disadvantaged, too reliant on oil and gas revenues to be a long-term threat -- that lets the West fancy itself a school teacher and Putin a bullying seventh-grader. And perhaps most insultingly, it was the West’s fundamental inability to take Russia seriously that led to a Polish missile installation in the first place. (Remember the first excuse for wanting to put missiles in Poland? To protect Eastern Europe from Iran. That makes about as much sense as protecting Nebraska from North Korea. You don’t pass off an excuse like that with a straight face... not to someone you take seriously, anyway.) This is foolhardy for one key reason. Yes, Russia is dangerous; and yes, Russia is weak. But Russia is all the more dangerous because it is weak. Consider which is more dangerous: an animal fighting for sport, or a cornered animal fighting for its life. When survival is at stake, everything changes. When there is no option of backing down, the game turns deadly. For these reasons, a strong-but-weak opponent should be feared more than a conventional one, not less. Weakness tends to force one’s hand. A Focus on Survival An important thing to keep in mind is that Russian and Western leaders just don’t understand each other. This not a mild rift, but a chasm. Spengler of theAsia Times puts it best: The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards. A deadly miscommunication arises from this asymmetry. The Russians cannot believe that the Americans are as stupid as they look, and conclude that Washington wants to destroy them... These perceptions are dangerous because they do not stem from propaganda, but from a difference in existential vantage point. Russia is fighting for its survival, against a catastrophic decline in population and the likelihood of a Muslim majority by mid-century. The Russian Federation's scarcest resource is people. It cannot ignore the 22 million Russians stranded outside its borders after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, nor, for that matter, small but loyal ethnicities such as the Ossetians. Strategic encirclement, in Russian eyes, prefigures the ethnic disintegration of Russia, which was a political and cultural entity, not an ethnic state, from its first origins. When Russia acts out on its borders, the West sees a thuggish Putin beating his chest. Putin himself -- thug that he may be -- sees a country acting in its own best interests, for the purpose of long-term survival. It’s a natural human tendency to assume that others see the world the same way we do. Here in the West, we have been successful for so long that it’s easy to take survival for granted. We are so far removed from long-term strategic issues that we rarely think about them... or condense them into sound bites when they do come up. As a result of this, Russia’s long-term survival focus is a doubly foreign mindset to us. We just don’t spend much time thinking 10 or 20 years into the future (though perhaps we should). And we certainly don’t spend much time thinking about survival (though perhaps China’s rise will change that). Counting the Costs Now let’s look at the costs of all this, and figure out how energy (oil and gas) comes into play. First, we know that this latest escalation will prove hugely expensive for the United States. In response to Poland’s agreement to host 10 American interceptors, Russia declared Poland a viable candidate for nuclear attack. Ukraine and the Czech Republic have also rushed to ally themselves with the U.S., and thus increased their target profile. Europe is not going to step up here (as if that were a surprise). The United States is going to have to pay for this added defense burden in Eastern Europe. If there is any hint of a move against Poland, Uncle Sam will have to respond... just as with Taiwan, and just as with Iraq. In short, the financial cost of being policeman to the world is about to go up, big time -- at a time when the U.S. is more financially exposed and militarily stretched than ever. Second, we know that big oil and gas producers like Russia and Iran need energy prices to stay high. This is one of those areas where weakness creates added danger. If Russia and Iran had more robust economies, they wouldn’t be so long-term dependent on one income stream. As it stands, oil and gas revenues are critical to both countries. This means that if energy prices fall too much, Russia and Iran (and Venezuela and a few others) will have strong incentive to respond. If that response is unpalatable to the West, so be it -- the cash flow is too important. This is why Russia doesn’t seem to care too much about its reputation at moment. The West is horrified that Russia would be so cavalier in throwing off cooperation with NATO, jeopardizing WTO status, and so on. But none of that stuff really matters to Russia in light of the deeper issues at hand. The Warsaw-Tehran Connection So, to recap: We know that Russia is “dangerous but weak,” with the weakness enhancing the danger. We know that Russia is focused on long-term survival, with acute awareness of population issues. And we know that the U.S. is badly overstretched, both economically and militarily. Last but not least, we know that oil-and-gas-fueled regimes (like Russia and Iran) need energy prices to stay high... and have both the will and the way to push them higher if need be. In sum, this is a lousy time to start up a new cold war. But that’s what we’ve got, and that’s what the Warsaw-Tehran connection represents. Russia will not stand for blatant aggression on its borders. If anything, Russia needs to expand those borders, or else face demographic oblivion. Being a brilliant survivor who clawed his way to the top of a brutal system, Vladimir Putin knows this. He is thinking about the long game. Polish PM Donald Tusk was right. The missile defense deal is a true crossing of the Rubicon, because Russian survival (as perceived by Putin) and Western democratic ideals are now squarely at odds. What happened in Warsaw (the capital of Poland) is symbolic of an epic clash, just beginning to take hold, from which neither side will be able to back down. Tehran (the capital of Iran) is a factor because Russia is not alone in needing high oil and gas prices to survive. What’s more, while there is certainly no love lost between Russia and Iran -- “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as the old saying goes -- Russia can make life extremely complicated for the West in all kinds of subtle ways. Selling nuclear technology to Iran, or threatening to do so, would certainly count as one of those ways. Coordinating hostilities would be another. Can you imagine America’s response to high-alert sovereignty threats on, say, Ukraine and Iraq at the same time? (God forbid Taiwan got thrown into the mix also.) No Way Out But Through The situation has the feel of “irresistible force meets immovable object.” Russia has the West over a barrel... a barrel of oil and gas. Meanwhile, the West can’t back down from its idealistic commitments, in spite of being tapped out on blood and treasure. And Russia can’t back down from its long-term expansionary plans, in light of the demographic survival threat. The takeaway from all this is that oil and gas prices may continue to fall as the world flirts with slowdown... but they can’t fall too much, and can’t stay down for too long. The energy powers that be can’t afford it. And for the West, there is no way out of this mess but through. We’ll just have to play a very tough hand as best we can, financing a herculean array of defense commitments without much recourse. The most frightening aspect of all this, as far as your humble editor is concerned, is the potential damage blowhard politicians can do. It’s not pleasant to think that, even now, very few Westerners recognize the scale or scope of what’s at stake here. Having been “on top” for so long, we’re just not used to genuine strategic challenges. If the wrong leader says or does the wrong thing in bone-headed assumption this is all just a parlor game, who knows where escalations could lead? The positive aspect, though, is the technological one. As the West comes to realize the full cost of our oil and gas addiction, we will be motivated more than ever -- in perhaps the most urgent possible way -- to find real solutions. Hard as it is to believe, we haven’t seen that sense of true urgency yet. You can already hear the sighs of relief as the price of a gallon of gas backs off. You can sense it in the political hopes that a little offshore drilling will make a meaningful difference. When we realize what’s really at stake -- when the West tastes fear again, for the first time in a long time -- that urgency will come. As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed: justice@taipandaily.com. Warm Regards, JL

Don't agree with the economical analysis, energy situation, and that Russia, with its largest nuclear arsenal, top 2 military technology, and economy-wise (trade, energy, etc) can be percieved as weak by any definition that I am aware of.  That is nonsense. He is making the same mistakes that he accuses western politicians of.

As far as "dangerous", that is remarkably simple.  He rightly suggests that we have "an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" situation, and in such a sutuation, the "danger" of the object depends only on the velocity of the force

A brick wall is not dangerous.  But you run into it at 100 mph, and its deadly.

Russia's interests (hal-way decently described here) are not subject to intimidation by any outside force.  The US is going to have to risk its own annihilation to move the brick wall.

It used to be worth it, as the threat of communism had to be stopped.  Lets wake up and realize its not really worth it for us now.  I cannot for the life of me see how the interests of Russia are harmful to the US, especially in the existential sense.  This is old thinking, and that is what is dangerous.  Because as long as the US thinks this way, they are an existential threat to Russia.  And Russia is capable of things that the US does not need to risk its existance for.

Egor:

Don't agree with the economical analysis, energy situation, and that Russia, with its largest nuclear arsenal, top 2 military technology, and economy-wise (trade, energy, etc) can be percieved as weak by any definition that I am aware of. 

 

well, then we have to come up with a good definition:-)

literally, Russian economy cannot be considered weak, of course. However, it is still #11 in the world:-) so it IS behind each of its enemies' economies.

reliance on oil+gas+military sales is what bothers me. That's not a stable source of "income"

what does look good, though, is the apparent russian determination to invest alot into nanotech. that's a very positive development. but i'm afraid most of that investment will again go to military applications.

Egor:

 I cannot for the life of me see how the interests of Russia are harmful to the US, especially in the existential sense.  

 they ARE, in the sense that Russia's interests stand in direct contradiction to the US foreign policy (of the last 15 years) based on (and I have no doubt, WILL continue to be based, even with Obama in office) on the Wolfowitz doctrine: preventing an emergence of any rival + securing by any means the sources of energy ( = middle east & caspian sea).

PS:  Obama is already saying that he will increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. So, it is either McCain in Iraq, or Obama in Afghanistan. Pretty much same idea.

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

I think the article makes a few good points, and a few bad ones. 

First, I like the first quote, America does indeed promote dullards, and this does scare our potential rivals.  I think McCain is intelligent, I think Obama is a better speaker.  Too bad we don't have a candidate with both qualities currently running to be president.  Maybe a Obamacain? (sounds like a drink at Red Lobster)

Why does the West generally oppose Russia?

First, America and Europe understand the vulnerability of the West to Energy.  We simply don't want the middle east destabilized so that our oil flow is interrupted.  This is considered a vital security interest of NATO.  We will do all we can to prevent the interruption of oil to our countries, without which, currently, our economy will become destabilized.  History supports this argument.  Where was Hitler's southern army headed in World War Two and Why?   Oil.  His target was Baku and the oil production thereof.  He got his head smashed at Stalingrad trying to achieve this goal.  Churchill's main worry during this time was the defense of the Caucuses Mtns. and he had tried to build up a British army  to defend Iraq behind these Mountains, but the russians successfully defended this region and this battle was never fought.  Churchill had to try to prevent Hitler from reaching the middle east because the British war effort depended on it.  So does ours.  This is not a new story.  Without oil, our way of life grinds to a halt.  Fact of the matter is that Russia is a lot closer to this oil than we are and due to the perception of Arab leaders, they view Russia as an alternative to kowtowing to the US.  IMHO, they would find Moscow a worse master than pandering to US interests.  But I doubt the Arabs believe this, though an examination of history would support this fact.  As for Iran, they hate us, and especially Israel.  We believe, as does Israel, that a nuclear armed Iran would not hesitate to use these weapons on Israel.  Many of you would disagree, but, in fact, Iran has expressed repeatedly their desire to see Israel destroyed.  I believe them.  So does Israel.  A Russian/Iranian alliance would be against the national security interests of the US for many reasons I don't need to repeat.

The above statements do not pretend to support the morality of this issue, just to discuss reality.

Secondly, the West generally supports any people who are trying to achieve self determination.  We believe in freedom, as I have stated in other posts.  We believe democracy is the best form of government currently in existence on the planet, and there is certainly plenty of evidence to support this supposition.  We believe freedom will lead to prosperity, and there is evidence to support this also.  This belief has currently  brought us into conflict with Russia due to the fact that many Russians currently live in countries which have declared their independence following the break up of the Soviet Union.  Above all, the US and it's western allies in Europe want to resolve this issue peacefully.  Our government understands that the issues involved here do not directly affect the national security of the US.  But, we must, with all good conscience, aid those who seek self determination and freedom and want to become a vibrant part of the world.   Our criteria here is simple, if it is the freely expressed will of the people, we almost always support it, regardless. 

Diplomacy is the name of the game today with Russia.  We must give Putin a way to save face, while achieving his recognition of the borders of his neighbors.  War is not an option.  This diplomacy probobly would include secession of areas of Georgia and Ukraine to Russia.  I do not argue here, the right or wrong of this statement, just the ultimate necessity for it.  Russia does have a national security interest in these areas, and we must recognize that.  Besides, Georgia and Ukraine would face years of internal civil war in order to hold on to areas populated primarily by separatists who want to be part of Russia. Ultimately,  You either gotta kill enough of them to force acceptance of the situation,  or move them. (example. 19th century policy of US government towards Native Americans, morally wrong, but effective.)

I know all of the above will probobly irritate Egor, because I always jump to the ultimate conclusion and don't elaborate how I got there,  But I will endeavor to try to explain myself.

pomidorchik:

Egor:

Don't agree with the economical analysis, energy situation, and that Russia, with its largest nuclear arsenal, top 2 military technology, and economy-wise (trade, energy, etc) can be percieved as weak by any definition that I am aware of. 

 

well, then we have to come up with a good definition:-)

literally, Russian economy cannot be considered weak, of course. However, it is still #11 in the world:-) so it IS behind each of its enemies' economies.

Well, i meant, of course, literally

And, probably the second fastest growing of the 10 above it. (a guess).  And still, not growing at its potential rate. Consider the resources and wealth potential that comes with the development of middle class. Consider that the entire EU will be running on Russian energy.  Consider what will fuel China and a billion cars not yet sold.

Plus some of those 10 are not technically enemies, as you know   Ones that are, are competing w each other.. (EU is trying to overtake the US, China is going to overtake both, etc).  Situation is very fluid. 

The point is any one of these countries, is essential to global economy, and in that sense - powerful.

pomidorchik:

reliance on oil+gas+military sales is what bothers me. That's not a stable source of "income"

It bothers me too, but I disagree that it is unstable.  There is nothing more stable. 

Still, i agree that a healthy economy should be multi-dimensional, but (a)don't forget other natural resources and (b)I think Russia is smart enough to continue growing the rest of the economy.   It will take time, but they are doing all the right things.  Consider energy revenues "starting capital".  Its run by the right people.

pomidorchik:

[ 

Egor:

 I cannot for the life of me see how the interests of Russia are harmful to the US, especially in the existential sense.  

 they ARE, in the sense that Russia's interests stand in direct contradiction to the US foreign policy (of the last 15 years) based on (and I have no doubt, WILL continue to be based, even with Obama in office) on the Wolfowitz doctrine: preventing an emergence of any rival + securing by any means the sources of energy ( = middle east & caspian sea).

It depends what "securing" means.  Russia would LOVE to put more oil on the market.  What more can Wolfowitz ask for?  When people say US wants to "secure" oil, they mean something that is not actually true, like getting it for free or something.  Have we "secured" Canadian Oil?  We buy it at free market prices regardless of whether it has been "secured".  We just need political stability around the oil wells.  In that sense, Russia's and US interests as far as energy are already aligned.  We just need smarter politicians in the US who can see that. 

I still do not see what conflict exists between Russia and US, that is not invented out of thin air by populism and bad politicians. 

Mkgilstrap suggests one that I am abt to address.

mkgilstrap:

I think the article makes a few good points, and a few bad ones. 

First, I like the first quote, America does indeed promote dullards, and this does scare our potential rivals.  I think McCain is intelligent, I think Obama is a better speaker.  Too bad we don't have a candidate with both qualities currently running to be president.  Maybe a Obamacain? (sounds like a drink at Red Lobster)

I think neither is intelligent on the topic of Russia.  There is a shortage of exposure to "the other side" that one of them could read or analyze and have a light bulb go over their head.  There is consensus on Russia among the mislead electorate, and even though I've seen some of the more intellectual of US politicians (Buchanan, Gingrich, even in some cases Biden) try to question this, it is most certainly not how you get elected into office here. 

As someone suggested here, there is evidence that Republicans know this but just don't voice it.  Up until Bush, they've certainly done better diplomacy-wise with the USSR/Russia than have the democrats, and certainly achieved more.  I hope McCain knows something which he cannot say for obvious reasons. 

mkgilstrap:

First, America and Europe understand the vulnerability of the West to Energy.  We simply don't want the middle east destabilized so that our oil flow is interrupted.  This is considered a vital security interest of NATO.  We will do all we can to prevent the interruption of oil to our countries, without which, currently, our economy will become destabilized.  History supports this argument.  Where was Hitler's southern army headed in World War Two and Why?   Oil.  His target was Baku and the oil production thereof.  He got his head smashed at Stalingrad trying to achieve this goal.  Churchill's main worry during this time was the defense of the Caucuses Mtns. and he had tried to build up a British army  to defend Iraq behind these Mountains, but the russians successfully defended this region and this battle was never fought.  Churchill had to try to prevent Hitler from reaching the middle east because the British war effort depended on it.  So does ours.  This is not a new story.  Without oil, our way of life grinds to a halt. 

In your example, oil was "owned" by those who controlled the wells.  This is not the case today, we have a global energy market as i tried to explain in my last post.  US would buy the oil at exactly the same prices, which are set by the free market (and a little by speculators )  There is no Russian Oil, Arabic Oil, Canadian Oil.  The price is the same, as long as production is not threatened by political instability.  US in NOT in the business of conquering oil wells in order to get free oil.   Why does no one get that?  The only person who tried this in recent decades in Saddam Hussein in Kuwait

mkgilstrap:

Fact of the matter is that Russia is a lot closer to this oil than we are and due to the perception of Arab leaders, they view Russia as an alternative to kowtowing to the US.  IMHO, they would find Moscow a worse master than pandering to US interests.  But I doubt the Arabs believe this, though an examination of history would support this fact.  As for Iran, they hate us, and especially Israel.  We believe, as does Israel, that a nuclear armed Iran would not hesitate to use these weapons on Israel.  Many of you would disagree, but, in fact, Iran has expressed repeatedly their desire to see Israel destroyed.  I believe them.  So does Israel.  A Russian/Iranian alliance would be against the national security interests of the US for many reasons I don't need to repeat.

As long as US is going to intimidate Russia, Russia will use the tools at its disposal to intimidate the US.  Iran is a great tool.  And I am not saying I condone this, this is something I criticize Russia for.  But I understand what they are doing and why. They are purely logical.  They are giving you expected and deserved consequence for your actions, trying to show that respect can only be mutual. They'll honestly say this in public, and have many times. Its not some secret plan. That is how logic used to work, they are in disbelief that logic no longer functions with the US.  The lights are on but nobody's home.

mkgilstrap:

Secondly, the West generally supports any people who are trying to achieve self determination.  We believe in freedom, as I have stated in other posts.  We believe democracy is the best form of government currently in existence on the planet, and there is certainly plenty of evidence to support this supposition.  We believe freedom will lead to prosperity, and there is evidence to support this also.  This belief has currently  brought us into conflict with Russia due to the fact that many Russians currently live in countries which have declared their independence following the break up of the Soviet Union.  Above all, the US and it's western allies in Europe want to resolve this issue peacefully.  Our government understands that the issues involved here do not directly affect the national security of the US.  But, we must, with all good conscience, aid those who seek self determination and freedom and want to become a vibrant part of the world.   Our criteria here is simple, if it is the freely expressed will of the people, we almost always support it, regardless.

If the US upheld what you just wrote, there would be no problem.  If the US didn't meddle in free, democratic elections in these countries, didnlt fund pro-wester regimes, didn't make false promises to the populations, didn't use puppet regimes to allow build up of military presence in these countries against the will of the populations, didn't mislead them into believing they will "protect them" and then stabbing them in the back when *** hits the fan, etc, etc, then these countries themselves would decide what is best for them.  Was it best for Georgia to give Russia a reason to snap back?  Only with US backing would someone get elected who does not care for the interests of Georgians.  The same thing happened in Ukraine with the "orange revolution". You are incorrect that in all of these countries the populations would choose to go pro-western, just like the US totally lied about what the Russian people want, what Iraqi people want, they now lie about what Ukrainians want.  All these countries would be better off without the US undermining their development, so get the f*ck out of there. The US does not belong there even with good intentions, much less with the intention of using them as pawns in a bigger conflict.  These countries need to be allied with Russia, and they will be - it is the natural order of things, and this time it can be brought about by D E M O C R A C Y.  And guess what - it doesn't hurt the US one bit. Because I agree with what you just wrote.  Prosperity, stability, etc.  Freedom even, why the hell not?  it naturally follows stability and prosperity.

mkgilstrap:

Diplomacy is the name of the game today with Russia. 

Really?  Tell it to the US governemnt.

mkgilstrap:

  We must give Putin a way to save face, while achieving his recognition of the borders of his neighbors. 

Putin is not looking to "save face".   He is just fine.  That's not diplomacy.

mkgilstrap:

War is not an option. 

Why the military buildup then surrounding Russia?  Which, remember, began BEFORE relations soured. If that's the game you play, Russia certainly has more balls at it. 

mkgilstrap:

 

This diplomacy probobly would include secession of areas of Georgia and Ukraine to Russia.  I do not argue here, the right or wrong of this statement, just the ultimate necessity for it.  Russia does have a national security interest in these areas, and we must recognize that. 

You see, they don't really feel they need your permission or approval.  You reinforce that by saying "war is not an option".  That is not how you walk into a room and do "diplomacy".  If they were building up military installation in mexico and Canada, and you had a border dispute with the countries (because you have your citizens opressed under local pro-Russia governemnts), you would understand what sort of diplomacy is really required here.

mkgilstrap:

Besides, Georgia and Ukraine would face years of internal civil war in order to hold on to areas populated primarily by separatists who want to be part of Russia. Ultimately,  You either gotta kill enough of them to force acceptance of the situation,  or move them. (example. 19th century policy of US government towards Native Americans, morally wrong, but effective.)

I happen to be from a region of Ukraine that is heavily disputed.  It is approximately 75% ethnic Russians. I follow the local politics, forums, media, very closely. It is also historic Russian land, the border moved many times administratively for centuries, because it did not matter, it was the same country/region/district/whatever..  Ethnic Russians, while not raped and cleansed, or anything horrible like that, are now having to learn new language, send their kids to schools that don;t tech in Russian, remove Russian literature (keep in mind, ukraine HAS no literature), suffer under pro-american do-nothing puppet governments who are way more corrupt than in Russia and do not have the interests of people in mind, stagnating economies, and eventually being target practice for whatever dispute the US will get into with Russia in the future?  They are Russians, on Russian land.  Referendums come and go, and go unrecognized. And Russia is not even agitating this, funding it or whatever.  this is grass roots - democracy pure and simple. The same thing happened with many other regions, and some of the other disputed regions in republics like Moldova.  But when declaring independence in 1991, all of a sudden these arbitraty internal administrative borders BECAME recognized by you, and the UN, and everyone and their mother?

On what grounds?

"I happen to be from a region of Ukraine that is heavily disputed.  It is approximately 75% ethnic Russians. I follow the local politics, forums, media, very closely. It is also historic Russian land, the border moved many times administratively for centuries, because it did not matter, it was the same country/region/district/whatever..  Ethnic Russians, while not raped and cleansed, or anything horrible like that, are now having to learn new language, send their kids to schools that don;t tech in Russian, remove Russian literature (keep in mind, ukraine HAS no literature), suffer under pro-american do-nothing puppet governments who are way more corrupt than in Russia and do not have the interests of people in mind, stagnating economies, and eventually being target practice for whatever dispute the US will get into with Russia in the future?  They are Russians, on Russian land. "

Egor, you seem to be a clever man. Stop reading, that foolish/stupid _ _ _ _ _ _ _forum.com, especially POLITICS. All the readable things there are BLACK/WHITE LISTS. There  is no language problem for people who don't imagine or create it for themselves. I' m a teacher at school. I speak Russian in the streets, at home, at school during the breaks and during the lessons, the only problem I have to write the class register notes in Ukrainian, but that's not the problem for me. The literature course is the same that we had + several Ukrainian authors (among them there's Lina Kostenko - I love her poetry, Vinnichenko - his plays are interesting) - that's all. Globalisation is coming. People in the streets are wearing ECCO shoes, children are playing MEGABLOCKS and MATTEL toys :) Ukraine is not Zimbabwe! The only bad things left are after Gogol: roads and fools! You'd better not read the media, but come here and be my guest. It's much more interesting to eyewitness and then to analyse.    

Who are you Kokosha, I always get the feeling that you know me from somewhere :)

It's surreal :)

On the topic - of course everyone speaks russian.  that was my point.  No matter what, they will speak russian.  Being isolated in that community, maybe there IS no language problem, but you are ultimately a slave to the official language of your country no matter what.  Everything official has to be done in Ukrainian, and you are frowned upon west of Dniepr.  There is no secret abt that.  We have a similar situation in the US with Mexicans.  Except mexicans came here KNOWING they would have to do certain things in English.  And still we entertain their needs, have bilingual services, etc.  Ukraine does not.

Keep speaking Russian!  I support you (not that you need it!)

Totally understand your point about not "owning" oil wells.   However, I think each country which "owns" wells would disagree with you

If oil in sufficient quantity were available in Canada  or Mexico, why are we not already buying it, what with the increase in costs to transport this oil to our shores?  I must assume, therefore, oil is not available in sufficient quantity for the US to supply itself totally from domestic, and hemispheric production.  Therefore, my argument that America must insure a sufficient oil flow from the middle east is viable.

Sorry for the sporadic answer and I hope you can follow.  I don't know how to use the "quote" feature of this reply.

I agree with you that Russia is entitled to use the middle east as an intimidation point in diplomacy.  But so are we.  Those consequences you mention cut both ways.  I agree with you that our diplomacy has been pathetic in this part of the world. ( the middle east )

Your point is well taken that the Georgian president must have believed the US would intervene either militarily or diplomatically in order to have attacked South Ossetia.  The attack just doesn't make sense otherwise.   You don't walk up and kick a bear in the knee if you don't have a gun somewhere handy.  I don't propose the US doesn't try to advance it's own best interests by supporting friendly governments in Eastern Europe, I do, however, submit, that the reasons it does this are different from what is supposed.  I think our state department and CIA truly believe that by encouraging or even trying to influence the outcome of an election, they are acting in the long term best interests of the people involved.  It is our arrogance that we believe some people just "don't get it", having been "suppressed" for so long, the are afraid to vote for what they really need.,  Personally, I reject this line of thought, but I agree with you that, indeed, we act this way sometimes.

When I state that a way must be found for Putin to "save face", that is an american expression which means a way has to be found that pleases both sides and neither government looks like it conceded too much to the other side. (example, Cuban missle crisis)  I think you would agree with this.

Exactly what "military buildup surrounding Russia" do you refer?   Surely not the putting of 10 missles on Polish soil.  These would not last 20 minutes in a real shooting war and you know it. If you refer to the fact that many Eastern European nations seek NATO membership, this is Russia's fault.  These nations would not seek such a provocative move unless they were truly afraid of Russia and sought protection through alliance.  Maybe Russia should assure each nation it has no territorial or imperial ambitions and sign treaties of non aggression with these countries.  Nothing would make the US happier.  Why?  Cause we don't want to pay for defending these places or making our sons die there in case of conflict.

Also, we agree on the issue of "soveriegnity".  I knew that the borders of Ukraine and Georgia, to name two, were drawn for administrative reasons during the Soviet era.  I have always advocated on this forum that these borders should be considered negotiable between those countries and Russia.  My comments support this idea.  My statement is that Ukraine and Georgia can either let these areas revert back to Russian territory or they will have, at minimum, the possibility of civil strife as these areas attempt to become part of Russia. We agree here more than you think.  I caught hell from Orkster the other day when I said these borders should be considered negotiable.  I think, when the west recognized these countries, they were recognizing the country and not the inviolability of the borders they claim, words to the contrary notwithstanding.  I believe this issue will in fact be settled by diplomacy and the borders will be adjusted to avoid war. 

When I say "war is not an option", I think even Ukraine and Georgia will see the light on this one, perceived promises of NATO notwithstanding.  Logic says even if Georgia and Ukraine win, what have they won?  A sullen population which will rise up as soon as it reorganizes.  In other words, victory wins nothing.

Mkgistrap, you are a pleasure to debate with, and if you were president of the US, i beleve everyone would be better off   You are logical and flexible, yet without wavering from defending what is of utmost importance - the interets of your country, its legacy, and its people.  You can compromise without being taken advantage of. 

Russians respect it, it is something that would make them very receptive at a negotiating table, imho

Why is this sort of a leader unelectable here?

I want to make certain it is understood, that I am not a Russia versus the US kinda guy like most people who happen to agree with me in these topics.  My country is the United States, its interests are top on my list of priorities, and I want Russia to do well and rise up insofar as I think the US and the world would benefit from a strong and stable Russia and surrounding countries. 

But make no mistake as far as whose side I am on.  Had there truly needed to be a conflict, had Russia wanted to undermine our success, or our interests, or hinted at an existantial threat.

Unfortunately we are the ones doing it to them, at a peril to the world and to ourselves.  I believe they'll be just fine actually, regardless.

Couple of comments about your last post -

for the record I did not say that I think Russia is warranted in using Iran as an intimidation policy.. I said I do not condone it.  The stakes are too high.  The rift between Russian and American politicians is a two way street, Russians are guilty in not understanding what makes you all tick also.  The current military technology exports to US enemies, not just to Iran, is the miscalculation of the century on the part of the Russians in my opinion. It would be much more productive to define common enemies at this point, lord knows its not like they don't exist. Common enemies could be the beginning of the end of this BS series of pointless escalations.

As far as military escalations around russia, I was talking about bases in a number of former FSU republics, anti-missile shield in eastern europe and talks about it in Azerbaijan (this one I actually don't have a problem with but Russia does), and the worst of all - puppet militaries - the countries that do have governments worshiping the US (primarily Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia) are having their armies modernized and armed.  Someone posted here a pic of Georgian army with equipment from which they didn't even bother to erase "US" insignia from.  This is worse than what Russia is doing in Iran, at least Iran cant directly molest the US and is not even in the same hemisphere.  This is an inexcusable provocation, knowing full well that these armies are loyal to the interests that are enemies of a nearby superpower.  It does them no favors, it makes them into pawns that can be disposed of.  Do you think these militaries serve the interests of their people?  I think we agreed -by definition- they cannot. 

On securing oil, I think I am still not being understood..  but i don't know how to put it differently, let me try anyway.. The US is not after land grabbing, as they are often accused of.  The US will buy whatever oil the US needs at world market prices regardless of what countries are friends and what countries are enemies.  There is only one market.  Geopolitics only determines who sells to whom, but the price is the same.  The oil that is in russia, or in saudi arabia, or venezuela, or canada, all adds up into one pipe (fuguratively) that satisfies demand of the planet. Same for the net consumers - they are  taking from the common pipe regardless of the actual location their oil is mined.  In global markets "securing oil" as it is often misunderstood is only a way to go after oil revenues.  US has no interest in those revenues as far as I can tell, and that is a good thing.

The phrase "securing oil", in the correct definition, means nothing more than allowing the pumps to run and refineries to refine.  In other words, stop inventing conflicts, screw around about philosophy abt the meaning of life and what freedom is, and get down to business of stability and productive coexistance.  US was right in capitalism versus communism, democracy versus dictatorship, that war is over, everyone is capitalist, pretty much everyone is democratic behind the iron curtain.  The rest, is the business of local electorates.  Let them define their freedoms and values.  You get credit for giving these gifts, but don't dare tell them who to elect.  Ruins your whole moral high ground.

Egor:

Who are you Kokosha, I always get the feeling that you know me from somewhere :)  

 I'm Kokosha as you are Egor. Is it good? Oh, I'll ask another way: do you like it? :) 

Egor:

It's surreal :)

Why? What?

Egor:

  Everything official has to be done in Ukrainian, and you are frowned upon west of Dniepr.  There is no secret abt that.  

No secrets.You know, next Monday I have to go to ОВИР to get my загран. passport . Funny thing, this time to get this thing I had to give only my blue passport, identification code (tax document), and photos and to fill in some application forms, half of them in Ukrainian and half of them in ... get ready... Russian, though it wasn't bilingual variant, they were separate papers. Everything is not so bad.

Egor:

We have a similar situation in the US with Mexicans.  Except mexicans came here KNOWING they would have to do certain things in English.  And still we entertain their needs, have bilingual services, etc.  Ukraine does not.

I also read some American media, so I'm in the topic. Estudie Espanol en el instituto. We'll have some to Euro 2012 ;)

Egor:

  I support you (not that you need it!)

Thanks, it's a great pleasure to get the support. I need it.

You know, I wrote that post only because one strange feeling .... It's about the people who left the country some time ago and they have some strange for me ideas about the present of the country. But, it's the psycology, only... 

Egor:

Russia's interests (hal-way decently described here) are not subject to intimidation by any outside force.  The US is going to have to risk its own annihilation to move the brick wall.

It used to be worth it, as the threat of communism had to be stopped.  Lets wake up and realize its not really worth it for us now.  I cannot for the life of me see how the interests of Russia are harmful to the US, especially in the existential sense.  This is old thinking, and that is what is dangerous.  Because as long as the US thinks this way, they are an existential threat to Russia.  And Russia is capable of things that the US does not need to risk its existance for.

Well Said ! Bravo !!

mkgilstrap:

Exactly what "military buildup surrounding Russia" do you refer?   Surely not the putting of 10 missles on Polish soil.

I love the way it sounds and how often Americans like to repeat this phrase.  Try turning the tables.

412:

mkgilstrap:

Exactly what "military buildup surrounding Russia" do you refer?   Surely not the putting of 10 missles on Polish soil.

I love the way it sounds and how often Americans like to repeat this phrase.  Try turning the tables.

Ya - imagine, just 10 russian missiles on Cuban soil....   

Egor - much respect ! We disagree on many things and I'm way more cynical than you , but what you wrote above is perfect !!

I'm totaly puzzled myself to this irrational , completely unexplainable Us and west policy towards Russia.
I know who is teaching it to all new generations of US politicians - Brzezinski !
But I do not understand why it existed even prior to his ascention into top ranks of US elite.

My only guess - this is continuation of old british policies from way back in the XVIII century..... if you hear only one type of propaganda for several centuries, that's the results you get.

MK – History does NOT supports your argument.   But this is some of your best writing.  I’m worried you have too much time on your hands.  J

Hitler ran out of oil, yes, but that is a footnote in the history books.  WWII was all about countries that militarized and moved to use that military power to gain more regional control.  History will repeat itself.  Because we don’t learn. 

Hitler lost the war when it lost the Battle of Britain.  Stalingrad was when the Russians started winning the war – pushing the Germans back to Berlin. 

Technology and military might fueled WWII.  Oil was important, but had no strategic significance.  I don’t think it would have strategic significance now either.  If we were to engage another Superpower, we would have to rely on nuclear weapons.  After all, we don’t like seeing hundreds of thousands or millions of American soldiers die.  We have NO experience in that.  Others might be more willing to go that route – but not the USA.

Also, Britain was not defending the Middle East from Hitler.  Britain, in many cases, was defending the British Empire from Hitler.  Back then, Britain was a superpower.  How we forget…..

KGBman doesn’t know what he doesn’t know….how could he?  He was brainwashed by the dreams of the Soviet Empire to believe that Mother Russia protected so many countries from the Evil USA Empire.  He understands the perfection of Communism, and the Greed of Democracy. 

How could any country NOT want to welcome Russian protection?  Even Duluth Georgia deserves Russian Peacekeepers.

lol

Obama will make Russian/Iranian oil a cheap commodity.  USA needs to lead with technology AND peace.