Russia - What lies ahead in 2006?

[bigfootedfred]

Since we Are now in 2006.
Russia has taken over the G8 leadership.
Putting President Putin As chairman of the G8 group of leading industrialized democracies.
Russia takes over G8 leadership

Russia has taken over the chairmanship of the G8 group of nations for the first time.
It will provide President Vladimir Putin with an opportunity to emphasize Russia's role in international affairs.

If you remember the little spat with Ukraine over gas...well this might seem illuminating

Global energy supply is set to be a big issue, with Russia seeking to show the importance of its oil and gas reserves.
Mr Putin will want to emphasize to G8 members like the US, Japan and Germany, that their economies may be far bigger than Russia's, but they need his country because it has enough oil and gas to keep them supplied for years to come.

Should Russia be leading the G8?
Im not sure it can be called a Democracy anymore.
Some key events Since Mr Putin came to power include:

1.Regional governors would no longer be elected, but appointed directly by central government.
2.Mr Putin clamped down on the Media, Many independent journalists have found themselves without a job, and some have died in suspects circumstances. many in fact believe contract killing's organized by putin because individuals knew too much, or were probing somewhere they shouldn't.
Paul Klebnikov shot dead -- another source
3.Mr Putin has continued support for the more repressive countries in the former Soviet Union, especially Uzbekistan
4.Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia's richest man, was found guilty of serious financial crimes, and sent to a distant Siberian prison camp for nine years.
5.Yukos oil company, was broken up, with its most lucrative assets going to a major state oil company [Gazprom]
6.Russia Has continued to trade nuclear technology with Iran

Those are probably the "big" ones, the invasion of checnyna should be there, but, that'd make me write on and on and on...
However.
Despite social problems, Russia has emerged in 2006, much stronger.
High world oil prices meant bumper revenues, most of which were invested in a national stabilization fund.
And of course, they have taken leadership of the G8

But the Questions are, would Russia be allowed to lead the G8 group, Which is supposed to be a group of the worlds largest industrialized democracies.
An what does Mr Putin, and Russia have in store for us all, in 2006?

[danzig]

Well Europe may have its own 'middle east energy problem' except the source is Russia if they are going to take a political stance like this. Poland is also suffering from this and basically got stabbed in the back by Germany in Russian/German pipeline (ironically enough a deal signed 10 days before German elections by Schroeder but failed to help him win though gee he now has a position on the board overseeing the project). Too much reliance is being placed on Russia by Europe imo and the making of the very mistakes we have made here in the US. Seems most of the major energy players in the world, Russia, Middle East, Venezuela and even Canada are taking a more hard nose approach that could be dangerous in the future.

"Gazprom said it had a "detailed plan" in place to ensure gas supplies transiting Ukraine would not be disrupted, and said any attempt by Ukraine to siphon off gas would be "theft"."

Wonder if thats a threat...

[bigfootedfred]

Well Europe may have its own 'middle east energy problem' except the source is Russia if they are going to take a political stance like this]....continued.....[Too much reliance is being placed on Russia by Europe imo and the making of the very mistakes we have made here in the US. Seems most of the major energy players in the world, Russia, Middle East, Venezuela and even Canada are taking a more hard nose approach that could be dangerous in the future.

I agree, though from their perspective it does make sense.
Prices of naturals oil and gas are set to rise. The trouble in the middle east, the recent explosion in the UK destroying thousands upon thousands of gallons.
It would seem logical for corporations and countries to protect their interests.
But Russia also has much political motive behind this i believe.
The Fact that in the crucial stage, President Putin comes along, and basically states that they have to pay market price, or they don't get it.
If this is some sort of punishment to the Ukraine for turning to the west....i don't understand his game plan. Why alienate your surrounding countries?
But Mr Putin, being ex-KGB, and based on his history, always Has a game plan, and im sure we will see it soon.

[Carach]

invade western russia.

this thing is the only power they have left....europe just invade western russia, take oil. job done.

[Boudicca]

lol...how would europes armies do that....

And: my god, our former chancellor Schroeder would almost certainly be fired by Gazprom after that, and another person unemployed is certainly the last thing germany needs...

[eizo]

oh please try,that would give them reason to bury you

[Carach]

the russian military couldnt bury a piece of rubbish. their navy barely have enough funding to leave harbour for a day. All europe needs is a quick military build up and bam, smash the russians. nukes wold be a problem. but we have anti nukes soon (generalisation there), only need to attack the areas with oilfields anyway, its not like we are goign for all of russia, because that would be impossible.

[bigfootedfred]

All europe needs is a quick military build up and bam, smash the russians.

hehe.

Napolean and hitler both thought the same......it didnt work out....

and napeloan had arguably one of the most effective fighting forces in history. and he was fighting what was realisticlly, a mostly peseant conscripted army.

Hitler, had somthing quite similar to fight, Russian troops would often not even have a weapon to fire at the germans.

[Carach]

hehe.

Napolean and hitler both thought the same......it didnt work out....

and napeloan had arguably one of the most effective fighting forces in history. and he was fighting what was realisticlly, a mostly peseant conscripted army.

Hitler, had somthing quite similar to fight, Russian troops would often not even have a weapon to fire at the germans.

i did start out the invasion thing as a silly joke..but with the growing crisis for oil i can see wars and political tension growing, and sometimes fighting is the only option, it is natural after all in almost all of the animal kingdom (and we are animals before people get high and mighty on that part), it is only natural to settle disputes with fighting, if everything else fails (much the same as in the wild when animals have features to intimidate the opponent into backing down so he/her gets his/her mate, if this fails they fight)

anyway back to your quote, i was waiting for someoneto make that point Napolean and hitler both had many other powerful enemies to fight at the same time.

Napolean had the british empire and others in europe that were not subdued, he lost most of his veterans in russia as a result, and his land power was never the same after that, arguably this eventually caused his loss at waterloo, and ultimately the end of France as a major power (well, after this point they certainly didnt threaten any other major powers without someone backing them up)

Hitler also had britain to contend with, aswell as america soon after the invasion of russia (if i have got the dates right?)

Neither napolean nor Hitler went in with the appropriate resources with which to decisively destroy western russia. The germans might of done had hitler not intervened personally in making tactical decisions. Both had major enemies elsewhere that were also whittling his resources away.

Today however, there are no major powers that europe have to fight other than russia (assuming this scenario happens). after a short time of building up the armed forces of NATO or europe whatever, an invasion of western russia would be a very real goal.

Ive always been a believer in consolidating power before you bite off more than you can chew as long as you treat the conquered good, maybe make a new nation or something? Keep the authorities in place etc etc (something that went wrong with iraq there), the civilised and 'in the know' would have no real reason to fight, and would be content with the above.

1 problem with iraq is that most iraqis are fed with religious propaganda, and not enough to counter this, ultimately swaying the local's opinions of the coalition. Russia however is much more civilised (relatively), Keep them content and they will have no reason to rebel.

The reasons to give to your own country? in this day and age where fighting for anything (whether right or not) is wrong to the general public, it would be difficult to bring them round, they need to be educated on the reasons, without the oil you lose your lifestyles you love so much, russia being completely unreasonable to its allies, a corrupt government controlled by massive corporations and the mafia..whatever

And..let the oil flooooooooooow

Obviously some of the above was generalisations, but you get the picture.

[TIGERCAT]

the russian military couldnt bury a piece of rubbish. their navy barely have enough funding to leave harbour for a day. All europe needs is a quick military build up and bam, smash the russians. nukes wold be a problem. but we have anti nukes soon (generalisation there), only need to attack the areas with oilfields anyway, its not like we are goign for all of russia, because that would be impossible.

....and people here say I'M A RADICAL. LOL

[imb39]

At the end of the day, Russia can do what it wants - the power of capitalism. Of course, the RoW could bring Russia to its knees in other ways - they seem to want to borrow money all of the time.

If the other nations are taking ahard line - so what? It's their prerogative. What's the betting that the West takes a particularly hard line on this... I'm sure hypocrasy will rear its head. This has been the situation for all time.

[Publius Scipio]

Yea, but they didn't have a unified Europe behind them.

[danzig]

Yea, but they didn't have a unified Europe behind them.

Because a Unified Europe is a myth, it doesnt exist and probably never will. Europe could always ask the US for help with Russia.....

If the other nations are taking ahard line - so what? It's their prerogative. What's the betting that the West takes a particularly hard line on this... I'm sure hypocrasy will rear its head. This has been the situation for all time.

Mainly because it can cause wars, energy is going to be a key component to foreign policy for most nations for decades to come. The Ukraine thing is a prime example imagine Russian going to Germany ok now you have to pay 4x the price you were. Yes Ukraine was basically getting subidized but a phased pricing increase was the only option that made sense here because no country can handle an instant 4x increase in something as vital as natural gas. It has all the makings of a political move to get a point across. Everyone likes going no war for oil, no war for energy etc but we all know damn well that if something big happened like Russia holding natural gas or oil hostage for political reasons it could very well spark a conflict. Hell I dont doubt for a second US would invade Canada if they attempted to use energy as a threat.

[Publius Scipio]

Because a Unified Europe is a myth, it doesnt exist and probably never will. Europe could always ask the US for help with Russia.....

We do not want nor need your help and western Europe has never been as unified as today.

[Bwaho]

Western powers should have crushed Russia a looong time ago

[The Thracian]

This comes to me as no real surprise. As for invading russia can we get serious for a moment that would cause a nuclear war.

[Tiwaz]

Right... Invade Russia... And how would goverments feed it to the population? Jeez.

Europe is not USA, you can't just use easy soundbite "God and democracy" and people will rally behind invasion. Europeans are far more sceptic.

And without popular support you cannot start a war in Europe.

[Custor]

Russia expects market prices (from the figures provided) for it's gas? Ukraine don't like it then buy it from someplace else.
Can't embrace capitalism but expect your 'old empire' to subsidise your energy costs.

[Tiwaz]

This is also, perhaps unintentionally, a crash course in world politics. Never make policies/decisions which can be considered bad by your neighbours upon whom you are dependant. While it may seem childish world politics is place where small disagreements between those with great gap of power can result in large punishments.

[bigfootedfred]

For thosse that dont know, Gazprom hold a pretty solid monopoly in the industry, in the Federation, and in many of old soivet bloc countrys.
the Row has been furthered, since Putin himself, came out and supported the company line

Time is running out for Ukraine to strike a price deal to avert Moscow's threat
to begin the New Year by turning off gas supplies to its neighbour.
Russia's Gazprom, which provides 30% of Ukrainian gas, wants to replace the current barter system
with market rates for gas and pipeline transit fees.
The four-fold price hike is unacceptable to Ukraine - the main route for Russian gas to the West.
Both sides show no sign of relenting before the 0700 GMT Sunday deadline.
Ukraine's pro-Western President, Viktor Yushchenko, went on national television networks on Friday evening to defend his position, saying he hoped that his personal good relations with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, would resolve the dispute.

GAZPROM'S 2006 TARIFFS PER 1,000 CUBIC METRES OF GAS
Ukraine: US$230
Belarus: US$47
Armenia and Georgia: US$110
Romania: US$280
Average EU charge: US$240
source: AP news agency

His appeal earlier in the day for a 10-day stay of execution was rejected immediately by Gazprom.
The company has invited Russian TV cameras to its headquarters in Moscow to broadcast the gas supply shutdown live in special news bulletins on one of the biggest holidays in the former Soviet Union.
Many in Ukraine believe Russia's moves are politically designed to manufacture a crisis over energy supplies, the BBC's Damian Grammaticas reports from Moscow.
They believe Mr Putin wants to punish Ukraine for its so-called Orange Revolution and moves to join the European Union and Nato, leaving Russia's sphere of influence, our correspondent adds.

'Humiliating'
Ukrainian gas industry officials have said the country's heating needs over the harsh winter can be met from domestic production but supplies to industrial customers may have to be reduced.
Justifying his rejection of the Russian price hike, Mr Yushchenko said that he did not want to believe Russia was using gas as a lever to put pressure on his country.
"That frankly humiliates us as a negotiating partner," he said.
However, Gazprom, he argued, was varying the price of its gas according to customer and he contrasted the $47 Belarus - a close ally of Moscow - would be expected to pay per 1,000 cubic metres with the $230 being asked of Ukraine.
"A price of $230 is unacceptable not because it is high but because there are no economic grounds for it," he said.
Adding to the pressure, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko - a leading figure in the Orange Revolution - said that anyone who agreed to the new market prices would be a "traitor to Ukraine".
Ukraine, which currently pays $50 per 1,000 cubic metre, has said it is prepared to phase in world prices gradually and can only raise its payment to about $80 for now.
It links this figure to Gazprom's offer to raise the pipeline transit fee it now pays - $1.09 per 1,000 cubic metre per 100km - to about $1.8. Ukraine has been asking for at least $2.

'No disruption'
Russian gas is expected to fetch on average about $240 in the European Union next year, according to analysts.
Gazprom said it had a "detailed plan" in place to ensure gas supplies transiting Ukraine would not be disrupted, and said any attempt by Ukraine to siphon off gas would be "theft".
With Russia supplying about a fifth of the EU's gas, the European Commission said it was "confident" the dispute would not lead to a shortage in the short term.
Even if some supplies were interrupted, it added, "the level of gas stocks and supplies from other areas" would cover this.
President Putin has offered Ukraine credit worth $3.6bn to cover the new gas cost but this was rejected by Kiev.

source