Showing posts with label Russian Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russian Empire. Show all posts

Monday, December 8, 2008

Russia’s Bare-Knuckle Policy on Oil

The new Obama administration needs to realize Russia has a potential stranglehold on America's European allies and will play its energy card when it wants to: to block the further expansion of NATO, for example, or the EU. Russia's next likely move, which could be delayed until the global economy starts picking up again, will be an attempt to orchestrate a global natural gas cartel patterned on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. About 15 gas-producing countries, led by Russia and Iran, met in 2004 and agreed to establish an "executive bureau" to coordinate "interests" in the global gas market.

Russia's Bare-Knuckle Policy on Oil
November 23, 2008
William F. Shughart II
Washington Times

If President-elect Barack Obama and his top advisers learn nothing else from Russia's invasion and occupation of South Ossetia this summer it should be that Moscow aspires to be an energy superpower.

Russia already is the world's second-largest producer of oil, pumping nearly 10 million barrels a day, and is the largest supplier of natural gas. Like all energy-exporting countries, Russia benefited enormously from the run-up in prices over the last decade. Every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil transferred about $1 billion into Russia's state budget. As a result, Russian foreign exchange reserves grew from $12 billion in 1999 to $470 billion at the end of last year, a balance equaled only by such countries as China, India and the Middle East oil producers.

When its tanks rolled into Georgia, the Kremlin sent notice it intends to dominate the oil and natural gas resources of the former Soviet republics in the Caspian Sea basin, raising the threat of supply disruptions to Europe. That possibility could give Russia political leverage over Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries that rely heavily on Russian fuels.

As rising oil prices strengthened the Kremlin's hand, Mr. Putin clamped down on Russian businessmen, most notably by prosecuting and imprisoning Yukos Oil Co. Chief Executive Officer Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The company's assets were later sold at bargain-basement prices to state-owned enterprises, one of which—Gazprom—was headed by Dmitry Medvedev, Mr. Putin's handpicked successor as president.

Despite existing contracts with Western oil companies, the Kremlin voided exploration licenses held by ExxonMobil and Chevron, then forced Royal Dutch Shell to sell some of its holdings to Gazprom. Increasing the pressure, Russia then raised previously subsidized natural gas prices to Ukraine and Belarus, two important conduits for gas exports to the West.

The new Obama administration needs to realize Russia has a potential stranglehold on America's European allies and will play its energy card when it wants to: to block the further expansion of NATO, for example, or the EU.

Russia's next likely move, which could be delayed until the global economy starts picking up again, will be an attempt to orchestrate a global natural gas cartel patterned on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. About 15 gas-producing countries, led by Russia and Iran, met in 2004 and agreed to establish an "executive bureau" to coordinate "interests" in the global gas market.

As world demand for natural gas begins to outpace supply, incentives for collectively reducing production and increasing prices will strengthen.

For the United States, a combination of conservation, increased energy production and improvements in energy efficiency is the best defense against volatile oil and gas prices and Russian blackmail.

But congressional gridlock over energy policy—and lack of leadership from the White House—has blocked longer-term solutions.

While increasing domestic energy supplies by tapping proven oil and gas deposits in the Outer Continental Shelf, the mountain West and Alaska will help, the most important step the United States can take on the energy front is to use more coal and nuclear power.

America has a 250-year supply of coal, more plentiful on an energy-equivalent basis than the oil reserves of either Saudi Arabia or Russia.

The president-elect should re-examine his position on coal in particular. "Clean coal" is not an oxymoron. Building more coal-fired power plants that use new technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions deep underground and converting coal into liquefied fuel for transportation are sensible policies.

Increasing our reliance on coal and nuclear power would free up natural gas for household and industrial uses and go a long way toward immunizing the United States from both OPEC and Russian blackmail.



William F. Shughart II is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Frederick A. P. Barnard Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Mississippi, and editor of the Independent Institute book, Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Russia's Resurgence or Downfall?

Russia is rotting from the inside - morally and demographically. It may be strong enough to kick around weak neighbors, but that's about it.

Its population is increasingly falling into alcoholism, even among women now, with the resulting early death rates. Russians are literally drinking themselves to death. (The Russian government is now relying on alcohol excise tax receipts to take them through the economic crisis!) And the reproduction rate is not high enough to support any real resurgence in the world. They are aborting themselves into oblivion. The Western European abortion rate is 20-25%. The American abortion rate is 30%. The Ukrainian abortion rate is 45%. The Russian abortion rate is 60-70%. (That's according to Russia's Surgeon General.) That means two out of every three pregnancies in Russia end in death. How do they expect to build a great nation on self-destruction?

The Russian economy is not weak because it's monocultural. It's weak because it is highly dependent on oil and gas production and export (60% of the Russian budget!), and we all know how wildly the price of oil can swing up and down. The Ukrainian economy, by the way, has a similar weakness because it is still strongly dependent on metals exports. And when the world price of steel drops 4 times, like it did a couple months ago, all of the sudden the economy is in trouble. Both Russia and Ukraine badly need to diversify their economies away from natural resource extraction into value-added products and services. If you want to know where the main strengths of any economy are, all you need to do is look at who the richest people are. The richest people in Russia and Ukraine are oil and gas tycoons, and various metals oligarchs. Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's steel tycoon, has declared himself to be the richest person in Europe a half a year ago, with a $50 billion fortune behind his name. (And in Russia you would have to include the heads of state - because Putin's personal fortune was reportedly over $10 billion in 2004.) There are no billionaires in the post-Soviet space who have built their wealth from software production and marketing (like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, et al), stock market investments (like Warren Buffet), department stores (like Sam Walton), etc. The bad thing about resource extraction and export is not just that its prices swing wildly and that it doesn't have a broad beneficial effect on the entire economy, but that it requires the least intellectual and creative labor, causing a certain degree of stagnation in society (look at the Middle East). The other major problem with natural resource extraction is that these are the most corrupt industries, and if they are dominant in a particular economy, they increase the level of corruption in the entire society.

The American quasi-empire is fundamentally a commercial empire. Its strength is primarily economic, and its cultural and military strength flows out of that.

The Russian (very real) empire is fundamentally a military empire. It was built through brute physical force, deception and propaganda, starting from the small fiefdom of Muscovy 700 years ago. And it should not suprise anyone that the Russian Federation is using those same tools to maintain or try to re-build their largest empire. Historically this strategy served Moscow well, as its neighbors were comparatively weak and its population and the military was comparatively large. This is no longer the case in several major respects. Russia neighbors a far numerically superior and economically dynamic China in the Eastern part of its empire and it neighbors NATO in the West, which is stronger than the Russian Empire, primarily because it includes the United States. So, Moscow's past strategy is counter-productive today, because if they keep pushing military conflict, they will inevitably get into a war with the world's major powers, a war that they will loose. (Unless they use major nuclear weapons, in which case everyone looses, but Russia still looses more.) It is also counter-productive because most European nations have abandoned brute imperialism and militarism in the second half of the 20th century. Only Russia has not shed its empire or its militarism. It is the wayward and unruly child of Europe.

Another major issue in mid-term perspective, that no one seems to be paying attention to until its going to be too late, is that radical Islamization of Russia. First off, Russia is fast turning into a Muslim nation. The Russian army recruits are already 40% Islamic. The next generation of Russian citizens after them is going to be majority Muslim (and non-Slavic). Aside from the religious factor this might not have been so bad if it it wasn't combined with the radicalization of Russian Muslims. When the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia proper had 400 mosques. Today it has over 40,000! The vast majority of these new mosques have been built on Saudi money (and money from other Gulf States), and are staffed with Wahhabi imams, who are teaching radical political Islam to Russia's historically moderate Muslims. That's why there is a high likelihood that in one generation Russia is going to be a majority radical Muslim state. Does anyone think this is going to be good for Russia's neighbors or for the world?

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Українці та Російський Імперіалізм

Факт є фактом, через пропаганду чи ні, але більшість росіян вороже налаштовані до України. Справа в тому, що більшість українців самі себе не поважають, а росіяни про справжню Україну майже нічого не знають, бо українці їм нічого ніколи про це не говорять. Чи то через побоювання згубити друзів, чи через зневагу до самих себе.

Я свої справжні думки про Росію від росіян не приховую. Реакція буває різна. Деяки мені відразу кажуть що я ненавиджу «русскіх». Для таких особисто пояснюю що проблем з русскімі в мене немає, а от з російским урядом є, і багато. Ті хто самі не люблять КГБ навіть погоджуються.

Для тих хто називає любого поважаючого себе українця націоналістом, пояснюю що таке націоналізм, і що таке самоповага. І що росіяни тут якраз самі націоналісти.

Деяки починають сперечатись про історію. Таких вантажу фактами з української історіологіі, про які більшість з них чують вперше, і які багатьох приголомшують. Вони просто не знають що відповісти, бо ніколи такого не чули.

Тих хто називає українців образливими назвами, чи розказує анекдоти про «тупих хохлів», запитую чому в них така соромна зневага до українців, на що вони часто починають доказувати свою велику любов до України і українців.

Зневажати себе чи українців в своїй присутності не дозволяю. Через деякий час, більшість навчаются не робити тупих висловів проти українців. І навіть ті хто зі мною незгодні, вже не сперечаються, і намагаються розмови в це русло більше не заводити.

Справа в тому, що російська історія, так як її викладають в Росії, є по суті своїй анти-українська. Україні відводится роль маленького брата, який завжди був «ісконной» частиною Росії і як наслідок завжди повинен бути. Тому мене зовсім не дивують анти-українськи росіяни.

А от чому в Росії влада така, це вже треба питати російських демократів.

Від себе скажу, що поки Росія залишається імперією, вона просто не може бути демократичною країною. Щоб стати нормальною європейською країною, яка зможе відноситись до своїх сусідів з повагою, вона повинна згубити цю імперію. А якщо росіяни цінують велику імперію понад людськи цінності, то вони заслуговують на таку владу. А українська влада просто повинна навчитись як правильно поводити себе із імперією.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Russian KGB and Ukraine

The Russian people are not an enemy of Ukraine. I personally have more Russian friends than Ukrainian friends. But unfortunately the Russian government is an enemy of an independent Ukraine.

The trouble is with the fact that the Russian government is run by the KGB (FSB), which has two main goals:

1. Increase their power as much as possible.

2. Make as much money as possible. (Much of which ends up on the personal accounts of the leaders.)

The infamous false Hitler dolls story, by the way, was cooked up by the KGB, and spread all over Russia and the world. You have to be dreaming not to see that they are working on subverting Ukraine's population with propaganda, and sullying Ukraine's image in the world as much as possible. The same thing goes for the current condemnation of Ukraine for selling weapons to Georgia, as if it was something illegal or immoral. Ukraine sells much more weapons to Russia than to anyone else, so Georgians actually have much more reason to complain!

Why would the KGB interests want to invade Ukraine? Two reasons: increase their power and make as much money as possible. There is only one absolutely sure way to gain and maintain wealth in Russia - rise through the KGB and then the world is your oyster. Everyone else can loose both power and wealth by making the wrong move (or by simply being alive) - and very quickly too.

There is a liberal opposition in Russia, with highly intelligent politicians like Valeriya Novodvorskaya, who are absolutely pro-democratic and anti-imperialistic, highly sympathetic to Ukraine (and support Ukraine's NATO and EU strivings) and wish that Russia would emulate Ukraine's democratic reforms and that the friendship between the two nations would be based on shared democratic, European values. (By the way, Grigoriy Yavlinskiy, who was born and raised in Lviv, and has headed Russia's Yabloko Party for decades, is also part of that opposition.)

Some resources on Novodvorskaya:

Голова партії "Демократичний союз"
Валерія Новодворська про Україну, НАТО й Росію (5 kanal):
http://5.ua/img/forall/cytaty/mp3/chas_vajlyvo_novodvorska_5kanal_02042008.mp3

вопрос:
уважаемая валерия ильинична, я один из ваших самых преданных поклонников! многие вас не поддерживают, а я считаю одним из немногих трезвых людей из этой страны! скажите пожалуйста в связи с стремлением украины вступить в нато и ес и вообще интегрироваться в мировое сообщество подальше от россии. как ей следует (политикам украины) "умнее себя вести" с россией? и вообще как вы считаете в чем основные проблемы современной украинской политики и кризиса в украине, какие вы думаете есть выходы? буду с нетерпением ждать ответа!

васюков александр, украина, одесская область, город южный
----------
Послушать ответ Валерии Новодворской:

http://www.ds.ru/media/a092008-15.mp3

Articles by and about her:
http://www.ukrrudprom.ua/news/wtwet344525.html
http://www.grani.ru/opinion/novodvorskaya/m.141518.html
http://pravda.com.ua/ru/news/2005/8/8/20673.htm
http://www.bulvar.com.ua/arch/2008/38/48da6024bf804/
http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2007/11/12/1495/
http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/exit/33366/
http://www.grani.ru/opinion/novodvorskaya/m.137634.html

She is also widely published in Ukrainian press:

Just do a simple search in Google for: Валерія Новодворська

Unfortunately, Russian thought leaders like Valeriya Novodvorskaya do not get through to the majority of the Russian public, because the KGB knows how to use the media very skillfully to promote its propaganda, which is not at all friendly to Ukraine. If Ukraine is ever on the news in Russia, it's always in a negative light. And this was true even during Kuchma's term. This is one of the reasons why 50% of Russians think Ukraine is Russia's enemy, while only 20% of Ukrainians think that Russia is Ukraine's enemy. 60% of Ukrainians think that Russia is a friendly nation, while only 20% of Russians think this of Ukraine. KGB propaganda is one of the reasons why the Russian citizens see every other nation as an enemy. Belarus, for example, is practically a part of Russia already, but only 50% of Russians think of it as a friendly nation. And this is the highest number among Russians, because Belarus is seen as the most friendly nation. In essense, if you want most Russians to see your nation is friendly, you first need to become a slave of the Russians. And then they will think of you as a friendly people.

There is also a huge demographic problem in Russia, as a result of their own imperial policies. The Russian Federation is fast turning into a non-Slavic, Muslim nation. (Ukraine's demographic problem is much smaller by comparison.) The Russian army is already 40% Muslim. This is Russia's next generation of leaders. More than half of the children born in Russia today are born into non-Slavic, Muslim families. And unfortunately, thanks to Saudi money, Russia's moderate Muslims are fast radicalizing today. Almost all new mosques in Russia (in the thousands since USSR's collapse) are built on Saudi money, and staffed by Wahabbi-trained imams. (Who produce by far the greatest number of radical Islamic terrorists worldwide.)

There are several options the Russian leadership has in regards to this:

1. Russian leadership may see a necessity to ward off this radical demographic and religious/cultural change by increasing their Slavic population through adding Belarus, Ukraine and Northern Kazakhstan to Russia's territory.

2. If Russia's leadership does not see this as a problem and continues to finance the de-Slavization and Islamization of Russia (to the tune of $10,000 per child), then Ukraine is going to have much bigger problems to deal with in a couple decades. Not only is Ukraine going to have a large, aggressive and imperialistic neighbor to the East, but it is also going to be an empire with a majority radical Muslim population. I wish Ukraine's leaders much good luck in dealing with a problem of this magnitude.

3. If people like Valeriya Novodvorskaya governed Russia, Russia would solve its demographic problems by scaling down its empire and giving freedom to all of its restive Southern Muslim nations. And Ukraine and Russia would both be part of both NATO and the EU by now, and would be best friends forever. Unfortunately, we live in a different world with a different reality. KGB is an implacable, professional, cold, and calculating enemy. The only way to deal with them is by being cool, professional, rational, and strong. (Something unseen in Ukraine's current crop of leaders.)

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Russia Needs To Loose Its Empire

Russia's leaders have recently become very worried that Russia may fall apart in the future:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B1924265-A5E4-4EDB-BF0E-69FB31D5123D

They see weakness where many see renewed strength, and rightly so. Despite huge foreign currency infusion thanks to oil revenues, Russia's Soviet-era infrustructure hasn't been rebuilt and it is crumbling. And due to extremely low birth-rate among ethnic Russia's, its population is slowly dying off as well, which may leave it unable to manage such a large empire as Russia is.

I don't necessarily want the Russians to die off, but I do want Russia to become a much smaller country, because then it will become more democratic and more European, and perhaps even join the European institution. And it will become much less of a threat to liberty in Ukraine and the rest of the Eastern Europe. Russia needs to loose its empire. The sooner the better. The sooner Russia becomes a normal and democratic nation, the sooner Ukrainians can breathe freely. But Russia cannot become a normal nation as long as it is such a large empire.

I have no problem with Russians as a people and have many Russian friends. The trouble has always been with the Russian governments, who have always been ruthless autocratic dictatorships, freely manipulating their own people to their own ends. And so long as Russia mantains its empire, it will continue having these types of governments, because only they are capable of holding such a large and disparate mass of land and diverse nations together. Democracy for Russia will mean a better life for ethnic Russians, but also freedom for the many captive nations that don't want to be a part of Russia and would get out if given a chance.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

To Imperialist Russia Everything Is A Weapon

I don't think Russians want an autarky. They don't really want to close themselves off from the rest of the world. But they don't necessarily want free trade either. For them trade, just like energy, is just another weapon to use to bend other nations to their will.

What I am noticing is that to the Russians everything is a potential weapon. They love war and conflict too much. Throughout history Moscow has gained most of what it has through aggression and deception.

For example, both Russia and Ukraine have record harvests this year (Ukrainian exports of grain will even be higher than the Russian ones - 5 times what Ukraine exported last year). But when you read the Russian press they are already talking in anticipation of the harvest about using grain exports as a new strategic Russian weapon against the West.

Russians are quite good at traditional weapons of war: conventional military power, nuclear power, intelligence gathering, secret services, sabotage, psy-ops and propaganda.

But they also see pretty much everything else as a weapon to use against their enemies - all those who will not bend to the Kremlin's will. So, this is how the Kremlin sees it:

Energy is a weapon - complete state control inside of the nation and pipelines outside of it and turning off gas and oil supplies at will and manipulating prices to reward and punish other nations.

Trade is a weapon - creating various obstacles (tariffs or bans) for products from nations it wants to punish, almost always under the guys of "sanitary concerns", constant trade wars with other nations, complete blocking of trade in some cases, like Georgia for the past two years.

International law is a weapon - they will claim international law priviledge whenever it suits their purposes and strengthens their case, but will break it at will if it's within their interests to do so.

Investments are a weapon - they use foreign investments by state-owned companies to gain control of foreign gas and oil infrastructure, including pipelines, refining companies, energy trading companies, gas station networks, etc. For example, about 5 years ago, Russian companies bought up most of Ukraine's refineries and when Yulia Tymoshenko was putting pressure on them, they all simply stopped refining oil for a few days, citing "routine maintenance", and caused shortages in the Ukrainian energy market. Belarus fares even worse. Last year, the Belarusian government was forced to give up the ownership of all of the country's gas pipelines to Russian state-owned company Gazprom.

History is a weapon - the Kremlin writes and re-writes history as it sees fit, a past friendly nation can easily become an enemy in history books, almost overnight, and a past enemy can easily be portrayed as a friend, if the need arises, and all of the history is written to glorify and justify the Russian Empire and its expansion.

The media is a weapon - they believe TV is the most effective form of media and thus the Putin government has come to own or control pretty much the entire TV industry within the Russian Federation, which is very useful for pushing government propaganda whenever they want to, glorify the President, or create and castigate enemies - foreign or domestic - in the public's eye.

Non-profit organizations are a weapon - the Russian government has cut off foreign funding from non-profit organizations in Russia and is now using non-profit organizations as a political tool. For example, recently a Russian government-funded Jewish organization was trying to portray Ukraine as an anti-semitic nation, even though the level of anti-Semitic violence is significantly higher in Russia.

The church is a weapon - it is no secret that most of the top leadership of the Russian Orthodox Chruch are KGB agents and closely work with the government on a whole range of issues, thus putting the church at the use of the state.

You can just go on and on down the list. Like I said, for the Russian Empire, everything is a potential or actual weapon, quite literally everything.

Monday, September 1, 2008

The Ukrainian Ingrates or Victims of Russian Imperialism

My friend Owen, at http://lexlibertas.com/, had lived for 3 years in Russia, and while there had noticed something interesting about how Russians view Ukrainians, along with other post-Soviet Republics.

There is an idea in Russia that other nations are ingrates to whom Russia gave "everything". It is a recurring theme of Russian propaganda. Or even deeper. A foundational Russian myth - that Russia is a generous nation, always giving to others, always protecting others, and so many nations and peoples simply do not appreciate Russia's great kindness.

The latest example of this came out in the speech of the Russian defense minister a couple days ago, who said that Poland, by pursuing its own national interest in allying with US, is being deeply ungrateful to Russia for freeing it from the German fascists. Never mind the fact that Russia and Poland have been bitter enemies throughout their common history, and that only half of the Soviet army was actually of Russian ethnicity. It's a powerful myth and I keep hearing it again and again in reference to all kinds of nations.

For example, this latest war was heavily portrayed in Russia as benevolent and noble Russians coming to the aid of a small and weak nation, which requested the Russian aid in defending it from an evil, imperialist, and atrocious regime of Georgia. If the Russians succeed in absorbing South Ossetia into their empire, but in the future the Ossetians decide they want an independent nation (which is quite likely - in the 1990 North Ossetia went as far as declaring independence from Russia), you will see all kinds of commentary in Russia how the Ossetians are deeply ungrateful for the great sacrifices in blood and treasure that the great brotherly Russian people made for them.

There are also similar commentaries in the Russian press and TV about Georgia today. They are claiming that Georgians are ungrateful for the Russian protection of Georgians against the Turks over two centuries ago. Never mind that the ancient Christian nation of Georgia was absorbed into the Russian Empire against their will. Actually, in the same way as Ukraine was absorbed. First comes a military alliance, and then through all kinds of means, the nation allied with Moscow finds that it has gradually lost all independence and has been completely absorbed into the Russian empire. The history of the Russian Empire is a fascinating subject.

And of course, Russia is never seen as ungrateful and greedy, regardless of what Russia has actually done in regards to all these nations. In most cases, Russia took more than it gave. It consumed the natural and human resources of the nations is controlled to build its empire. When Muscovy took over Ukraine, Ukraine actually had greater population than Muscovy's territory. So, the Ukrainian conscripts actually bore the brunt of all the wars of expansion of the Russian Empire in the last 300 years. Even as late as the war with Japan, much of the force that was used in the fighting was from Ukraine. God only knowns how much bigger the population of Ukraine would be if it wasn't for its "brotherly relationship" with Russia. How many died in Russia's wars, how many died from Stalin's famine (actually a third of Ukraine's population at the time).

Another obvious process is the brain drain that occurs whenever Russia takes over any nation. The best and the brightest leave for Moscow or St. Petersburg and the nation becomes a culturally and intellectually mediocre place as a result, or a complete back-water if this goes on long enough. (Frequently, talented local intelligencia were also purged, even prior to Soviet times, compounding the process.) A modern example is that a number of Russian politicians were actually born and raised in Ukraine and went to Moscow during Soviet times. For example, Grigoriy Yavlinskiy, a long-time Soviet and Russian politician and the leader of Russia's democratic opposition, was actually born and raised in Lviv, Ukraine, and had living parents there as late as the 1990s. People like him could have contributed significant political talent to Ukraine, but by virtue of their assimilation and careers in Russia during Soviet times, they have stayed in Russia and are contributing to its development.

The final point about "ingraditude" is that most of the nations controlled by Russia could have been far more advanced in all respects if they hadn't been controlled by the Russian empire. For example, in the early 1940s, the standard of living in Estonia was higher than in Finland! But by having been absorbed into the Russian empire, they were set back by several decades in development. In essence, they contributed way more to the Soviet Union than they ever received from it.

Here's to hoping that Ukraine will find the strength to resist renewed Russian Imperialism and that the rest of the world, and especially the rest of Europe, will not simply ignore the plight of the Ukrainian people and come to their aid in an hour of need.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Foreign Investors Flee Russia

Not only has Russia almost completely isolated itself diplomatically, it is also shooting itself in the foot economically by its unjustified agressiveness and expansionism.

The damage to Georgia has been estimated at $1 billion. And yet the Georgian stock market is booming. And now the US has pledged $1 billion in aid, which will replace the infrastructure damage, and European financial assistance should be forthcoming soon.

Russian stock market, however, is continuing to slide, as investors are pulling money out of Russia in droves. At least $25 billion in foreign investments has left Russia since the start of its imperialist operation in Georgia.


"For the first time since the Crimean War, Russia has no allies," said Garry Kasparov, chess grandmaster turned opposition politician. "We are encircled by countries that are either suspicious or alienated and very angry."

"Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician, has said the invasion was a blunder, and that ordinary Russians will pay for it."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_bi_ge/georgia_russia_economic_impact

Fears of isolation as investors flee Russia

By CATRINA STEWART, Associated Press Writer
Fri, Aug 29, 3:16 PM ET


MOSCOW - At the outset of this year, Russia proudly proclaimed itself an island of stability at the annual economic gathering in Davos, setting itself apart from the tumult of the global financial crisis.

Then came the war with Georgia, which some here regard as Russia's 9/11.

Within hours of Russia's retaliation to Georgia's move to take back its breakaway republic of South Ossetia, Russia had attracted widespread condemnation and threats of isolation and expulsion from the international community.

"For the first time since the Crimean War, Russia has no allies," said Garry Kasparov, chess grandmaster turned opposition politician. "We are encircled by countries that are either suspicious or alienated and very angry."

On the economic front, investors are hightailing out of Russia, while Western politicians have hinted at sanctions, visa restrictions and even the denial of Russia's right to host the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

Increasingly cut off from the global world, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev risks undoing many of the successes of the past 10 years, ranging from the country's robust economic growth to a growing sense of national prestige and purpose.

Stock markets plunged, and Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said more than $7 billion was pulled out of the country in just two days, exposing the fragility of Russia's nine-year economic boom.

Stock markets plunged, and more than $7 billion was pulled out of the country in just three days, exposing the fragility of Russia's nine-year economic boom.

The economy was already under strain.

The five-day war followed months of bad news on Russia's corporate front, led by a high-profile shareholder tussle for control at TNK-BP, the Anglo-Russian joint venture.

In early summer, Bill Browder's Hermitage Capital blew the lid on a catalog of intimidation and corporate theft at the hands of Interior Ministry officials, and in July Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly attacked steelmaker Mechel, sending its shares into a tailspin.

Inflation was running at nearly 15 percent.

But while the storm clouds gathered, investors clung on.

The war was the tipping point, said James Fenkner, managing partner at Red Star Asset Management.

French investment bank BNP Paribas has estimated that more than $25 billion has been withdrawn from the country since the outbreak of the conflict, and Russian stock markets have plunged more than 30 percent since May.

It's a far cry from last December, when investors and analysts said 2008 was the year that Russia's stock markets would recover from the previous year's mediocre performance, even in light of the global turmoil.

Now investors are pulling their money out in droves.

"Very few investors have to be here now," said Fenkner. "Unless they are Russia-dedicated, they will move to friendlier environments. Sentiment is just very bad."

To many, Russia's fundamentals look very attractive.

"Russia is extremely cheap, and most of the growth dynamics are still in place," said Peter Halloran, whose hedge fund Pharos Fund has $150 million under management in Russia. "If I look forward 12 months, I want to own Russia."

But as the uncertainty continues, Russia could be seen as a high-stakes geopolitical gamble.

"If there is a perception of Russia as a risky place or as an undesirable place to invest, then the damage will be more long term," said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib. "It will restrict the development of the economy and hurt the government's plans to create a more diversified the economy."

The war has played well at home. Russians have rallied to the government's decision to punish Georgia for what it calls aggression and recognize the independence of South Ossetia and another separatist-controlled region, Abkhazia.

Alexander Konovalov, president of Moscow's Institute of Strategic Assessment, said many in Western countries see a "big, strong, unmanageable Russia" attacking "a small, democratic, innocent Georgia."

"In Russia," he said, "it is big, aggressive, undemocratic and irresponsible Georgia who took small and innocent South Ossetia."

As Western politicians warn of sanctions and consequences, many ordinary Russians feel increasingly isolated — and blame the Western media for painting a distorted picture of the conflict.

Russians "are sad about the situation and I have had many e-mails from people asking why the media is reporting the situation only from one side," said Lioudmila Siegel, chairman of an organization for Russians in Sweden.

A minority of Russians, though, have denounced the government's decision to use military force in the conflict.

The Union of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers, for instance, has railed against the use of conscripts in Georgia, despite promises by the Defense Ministry that it would not do so.

Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician, has said the invasion was a blunder, and that ordinary Russians will pay for it.

"This is a strategic and long-term mistake, the effects of which will be felt by virtually all Russians," Nemtsov wrote. "This is the beginning of a new arms race."

It could, he predicted, also mean visa restrictions, expulsion from the G8 group of countries, discrimination against Russian business abroad and a reversal of the decision to give Russia the 2014 Winter Olympics.

But for the most part, liberal opposition to Russia's actions has been relatively subdued. "The liberals have been extremely quiet," said Konovalov. To stand up for "democratic values and cooperation with the West ... will be seen as a betrayal."

David Cameron, head of Britain's Conservative opposition party, called for the British government to suspend visas for some Russian nationals and even, possibly, suspend Russia's membership of the G8 club of rich nations.

Since the murder of Alexander Litvinenko on British soil nearly two years ago, relations between London and Moscow have deteriorated, and British tabloids were quick to pick up on anti-Russian sentiment.

On Thursday, the Daily Mirror tabloid newspaper condemned British foreign secretary David Miliband for allowing "hundreds of Russian oligarchs who prospered under Vladimir Putin" to use "Britain as a bolthole."

But while there is some popular bashing of Britain's very rich Russians — who the tabloids have long loathed because they benefit from Britain's relatively generous expat tax laws — the overwhelming political and business view of Russians in Britain is still positive.

But analysts warn that, even if Russians themselves are welcomed abroad, it may become more difficult for Russian big business to expand there — especially in sensitive areas such as defense and energy.

In a fit of pique two years ago, then-President Putin canceled foreign participation in the Shtokman gas project after European objections to a move by VTB, a major Russian bank, to acquire a minority stake in Europe's EADS aerospace and defense group.

"This Russia phobia is nothing new," said Fenkner. "But it's going to turn up a couple of notches. It's not a trend reversal."

Friday, August 29, 2008

Admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO

Alexander J. Motyl, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, has published this wonderful opinion piece in International Herald Tribune:

"All of Russia's non-Russian neighbors, know that the war in Georgia is really about them."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/27/opinion/edlet.php
International Herald Tribune, August 27, 2008

Resurgent Russia
Alexander J. Motyl, PhD

Russia's blitzkrieg against Georgia has taken place 70 years after the infamous Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938, when France, Britain and Italy agreed to cede Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the hope of establishing "peace in our time."

Like Hitler's Germany, Vladimir Putin's Russia is a post-imperial authoritarian state that must expand. The Soviet empire's collapse in 1991 left the Russian population feeling humiliated; economic collapse in the early 1990s only compounded their demoralization. As in Germany, Russians blamed democracy for their collapse and humiliation. And, as in Germany, a strongman promising greatness and glory seized power, dismantled democracy, and created an authoritarian, hyper-nationalist regime with a personality cult based on promises to re-establish imperial greatness.

The war against Georgia is not the first instance of Russia's aggressiveness vis-à-vis its former colonies. Estonia was the target of a cyberwar; Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic have been subjected to energy cut-offs; Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have been punished by trade sanctions.

These states, like all of Russia's non-Russian neighbors, know that the war in Georgia is really about them.

The Munich Agreement is considered a classic example of the perils of appeasement. Had the democracies said no then, it's possible that World War II could have been averted. At some point - and that point surely arrived with Russia's invasion of Georgia - the West must learn to say no to Russia. Expelling Russia from the G-8 would be symbolically nice, but Putin would respond with a laugh. Only an "anti-Munich" would say no in a meaningful fashion: Admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO's Membership Action Plan - immediately. Putin will glare in response; he will threaten retaliation - and then, like all loud-mouthed dictators, he will acquiesce.

Alexander J. Motyl
Newark, New Jersey
Professor of political science, Rutgers University

Friday, August 22, 2008

Russia broke its own rules in invading Georgia

Not only is Russia's invasion illegal under international law, it also breaks the principles proclaimed by Russia's own government!

I am quoting below from a policy paper on Russian president's own website - posted just a month ago!

Президент России
12 июля 2008 года
КОНЦЕПЦИЯ ВНЕШНЕЙ ПОЛИТИКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
http://www.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2008/07/204108.shtml

Российская Федерация ... твердо исходит из того, что санкционировать применение силы в целях принуждения к миру правомочен только Совет Безопасности ООН; рассматривает статью 51 Устава ООН как адекватную и не подлежащую ревизии правовую основу для применения силы ... Применение принудительных мер с использованием вооруженной силы в обход Устава ООН и ее Совета Безопасности не способно устранить глубокие социально-экономические, межэтнические и другие противоречия, лежащие в основе конфликтов, подрывает основы международного права и ведет к расширению конфликтного пространства, в том числе в непосредственном геополитическом окружении России.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Russia, Georgia and Russophile Americans

Something is seriously troubling me and I have to write about this. I am starting to see Americans who speak gushingly about Russia and its empire and actually support Putin and Medvedev in their actions in invading the Republic of Georgia and bombing Georgian cities.

Some clear-headed thinking is required here about these matters. I frankly cannot believe any American who loves liberty can seriously be in favor of an invasion of one nation into the territory of another sovereign nation which has not attacked it. Or of despotic leaders like Putin or Medvedev.

Many Ukrainians are now afraid that Russia is planning to invade Ukraine as well. The Russian public is already being prepared for it, just like it was prepared for the Georgian conflict. Russians typically see the United States as their main enemy, but in the recent months they were manipulated by the largely state-controlled Russian media into believeing that Georgia is the #1 enemy of Russia. Russians are also being trained to see Ukrainians as their enemies. Today, 50% of Russians already consider Ukraine to be the enemy of Russia. Russia is the #2 world exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia and their economy is booming because of the record high prices of oil and the weak dollar. This is making them confident and reckless. They are repeating the American hubris in recklessly throwing their weight around to bend weaker nations to their will. (Since Georgia's military is 20 times smaller than Russia's, that was easy to do.)

Some Russophile Americans are anti-war people who seem to think that since Russia often opposes the United States in its imperial ambitions, then Russia must be good and peaceniks should support Russia. Well, the reason the Russian Federation opposes the American Empire is because it wants to build its own empire. The Russian leaders seriously believe that if they don't attack their neighbors, their existing empire will fall apart. They really think if they are not expanding, then they are contracting. Believe it or not, in spite of having a giant nation and one of the most powerful militaries, they seriously think they are fighting for the survival of their nation by attacking weaker nations.

The Russian Empire is much older than the American Empire. The Russian conflict with Georgia had started before the United States even existed. It's preposterous to suggest that Russia's imperial war of aggression against Georgia is only a proxy war with the United States.

I am against the Russian Empire just as much as I am against the American Empire, and so should be all lovers of liberty. American lovers of liberty need to learn to apply their principles equally to all nations, across the board, instead of selectively opposing their own American Empire while throwing their support behind other empires.

Let us work for a world without empires. All people deserve to have liberty and sovereignity by virtue of their birth, if they choose to seek it. And all leaders who choose to use force to abrogate the liberty or sovereignity of the people of other nations or their own are the enemies of liberty.